What happens after you get arrested?

[DrDeth]

@Bear_Nenno

Do you have a cite for this? I don’t think the officer needs to tell the suspect anything more than “you’re under arrest” for it to be a lawful arrest. The person has no right to have the charge explained to him until well after he is booked.

Umm, perhaps the ACLU whose website I cited and who I was quoting?
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-...what-do-if-you

[GiantRat]

When I lived in West New York, NJ last year, I accumulated an absurd number of parking tickets (triple digits in less than a year). The tickets were routinely invalid (no parking 8am-9am, ticketed at 3am and similar), but going to court takes literally an entire day (the municipal court combines parking, traffic, criminal and - amazingly - juvenile truancy into the same sessions). As a result of these tickets (and the DMV changing my SSN for no reason), my license was suspended. When I was pulled over in another town for having the audacity to pull into a parking lot to turn around, I was arrested and transferred to West New York.

To the OP, in my case I was never allowed to make a phone call. My girlfriend (who was with me when I was taken in and drove my car home) was unable to find any indication of where I was, what I was charged with, or when I would be released. I asked repeatedly to make a phone call to her so that I could figure out how to pay the $5,300 bail (for parking tickets!!). They would only accept cash that I had in my pocket (I was um… a bit shy of $5300). At about 3am, the “good cop” agreed to make a phone call to her on my behalf, but insisted that I couldn’t make a call on my own until being released by the judge (and if the judge didn’t release me, I wouldn’t be able to make a call - even to a bondsman). Fortunately, my panicked girlfriend was able to track down a bondsman and figure out where I was (she had been told that I was in the local jail, but that I’d be going to county at an unidentified time).

Never go to jail in that town. I’ve worked in law enforcement and seen plenty of jail cells. These had no running water (even for the toilet - unflushed for several years, by all appearances), the walls were stained with a variety bodily fluids, and, as someone mentioned earlier, it was extremely cold (and my shirt and shoes were taken away.

I’ve now had 5 court appearances (ultimately resulting in 2/3 of the tickets being dismissed for being illegitimate), have thousands of dollars in lawyer fees, and lost my job for missing work so many times (to go to court).

Stay the f*ck out of Hudson County, NJ, at all costs.

[klintypooh]

Oh, I forgot about this story.

When I was roughly 15, I was arrested for a burglary (breaking and entering) that I didn’t commit, nor have I ever done. After the usual fingerprints etc were taken, I was led to a room where I had all of my clothes removed, apart from my underwear for forensic evidence.

Now at the time these clothes were nearly new, but even after CCTV evidence showed me nowhere near the house that had been broken into whilst I was supposedly in the house, the police kept my clothes for at least 6 months.

When they returned them finally…I’d grown out of them.

Boo and hiss!

[Bear_Nenno]

@DrDeth

Umm, perhaps the ACLU whose website I cited and who I was quoting?
http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-...what-do-if-you

Ummmmm, perhaps do you have a legitimate cite? ACLU does not pass legislation, and they do not mention any relevant laws on the page you link to.

On that same page, they make the statement, “If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.” This is not universally true, if not outright false. Though some jurisdictions may have found that any detention in which a person cannot legally walk away constitutes an arrest, this isn’t the case everywhere.
In Florida, it is still legal for an officer to detain you under certain conditions where he believes you just committed, are committing or are about to committ a crime. These stops are legal detentions and not arrests. The officer would need probable cause to arrest you, but he only needs reasonable suspicion to detain you. If you were so detained and you asked the officer if you were under arrest, he would say, “No.” However, you would not be free to leave, and any attempt on your part to do so would be a crime. So it is much better to ask, “Am I free to leave?”, instead of assuming you are free to leave simply because you are not under arrest. Not to mention traffic stops. Do you think a person is under arrest during a traffic stop? Do you think he is free to “calmly leave” since he isn’t under arrest? That’s what your link is saying. ummmmm, perhaps you can understand now why your link is no cite at all.
Now, about your claim on which I asked for a cite. Do you have any law or legal decision you can share? Or is that it? Because it would seem they are trying to say that an officer cannot arrest someone without first telling the person. I do not believe that informing the suspect is an element of a lawful arrest. Someone cannot resist arrest on the basis that the officer did not inform him of the charges and therefore the arrest is unlawful. It is still a lawful arrest. The officer does not have to tell you why to effectively arrest you. Merely telling you that you are under arrest is enough. And in fact, in many jurisdictions, he doesn’t even need to do that. If the suspect should have reasonably known he was being arrested based on the officer’s actions, (ie. getting out handcuffs, placing his hands on the suspect) it’s a lawful arrest. At that point, you are legally under arrest and trying to stall by demanding that the officer tell you why before he puts the cuffs on you is only going to make things worse for you and possibly lead to resisting charges!
You do have a right to hear the charges against you, but it’s called arraignment. The officer is under no obligation to explain your charges, and you have no right to hear them while you are being arrested.
I do not believe that any court in the United States has ruled that it is a right of a citizen to know why he is being arrested. Unless of course you can provide a site that proves otherwise, which is all I was asking to begin with.

[Kobal2]

@Markxxx

The cops can also do things like, “You don’t have to talk to us. You an wait in the holding cell with that enormous man who hates everyone, or you can talk to us and stay on this bench.”

Can’t you sue them if you get assaulted on their watch ? Or raped in prison for that matter ?

[Baron_Skinley_Von_Clipper]

@Kobal2

Can’t you sue them if you get assaulted on their watch ? Or raped in prison for that matter ?

I wouldn’t have thought so, the police are essentially a gang. As I said upthread, I was assaulted by the police although I had done nothing wrong, when I tried to complain about my treatment I was told “It’s your word against six of us, who is the magistrate going to believe?”.

[Baron_Skinley_Von_Clipper]

In fact, the police in this country are now allowed to murder people in broad daylight, on camera, with no fear of prosecution.

Google “Ian tomlinson G20”.

Today I am ashamed to be English. Disgusted.

Government sanctioned murder

[DrDeth]

@Bear_Nenno

Ummmmm, perhaps do you have a legitimate cite? ACLU does not pass legislation, and they do not mention any relevant laws on the page you link to.

Now, about your claim on which I asked for a cite. Do you have any law or legal decision you can share? Or is that it? Because it would seem they are trying to say that an officer cannot arrest someone without first telling the person.

I made no claim. I quoted a cite. It is the freaking ACLU- a well known and nationally recognized advocate for legal rights. Anyone who claims the ACLU is not a legitimate cite is being ignorant or specious. Nor do I need more of a cite. I came up with a perfectly legit cite. You don’t like it, then you come up with a CITE that refutes mine. So far, ya got nuthin.

You are also perfectly able to email the ACLU and refute their site or ask for a clarification. Please do so. I’d like to see their response.

When come back, bring cite.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Markxxx

If you have a car it’ll be impounded at the arrestee’s expense.

Even if they don’t charge you with anything, or you’re case is dismissed or comes back not guilty or something?

Since impound fees can rack up faster then some people afford to pay them, and even the ones who can seems pretty shitty to just arbitrarily steal their money like that.

[DrDeth]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Even if they don’t charge you with anything, or you’re case is dismissed or comes back not guilty or something?

Since impound fees can rack up faster then some people afford to pay them, and even the ones who can seems pretty shitty to just arbitrarily steal their money like that.

Pretty much. Sometimes if it’s legal to park it there or you have a buddy who can come get it, they will be nice.

[Bear_Nenno]

@DrDeth

I made no claim. I quoted a cite. It is the freaking ACLU- a well known and nationally recognized advocate for legal rights.

So basically you are saying that you have no knowledge of the matter, but your Google search turned up some unofficial statements on the ACLU’s website. Got it.
That’s the problem with people trying to answer questions with Google.

So you want me to go find some cites that prove a specific “Right” does not exist. That is a little more difficult than someone showing it does exist. Surely you can understand this. Yet you can’t offer anything.
I will do my best to go find something that proves its nonexistance. I will look for something, but what I can tell you is that the only relevant right a person has is from the 6th Amendment, and this is right is satisfied at arraignment.

While I am looking for a good cite, you can use your Google-fu to look up Terry v Ohio and/or “arrest vs detention” for a legitimate legal cite explaining why the information on your ACLU page is not universally accurate. A person does not have the right to calmly walk away simply because he is not under arrest. If he is lawfully detained, he can’t leave.

[Bear_Nenno]

@DrDeth

When come back, bring cite.

FOUND IT! Kladis v Brezek.
http://vlex.com/vid/danny-kladis-leonard-brezek-shilling-37161770

In 1987, the 7th Circuit concluded that neither the 6th nor the 4th amendment provided the suspect the right to be informed of the reason for the arrest.
The obligation to inform him does not occur until the government actual commits itself to prosecution. And as I said, this happens at arraignment.

We conclude that neither the Sixth Amendment nor the Fourth Amendment provided Kladis the right to be informed of the reason for his arrest. Although the Sixth Amendment provides an “accused” the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation,” U.S. Const.Amend. VI, we have previously explained that the Sixth Amendment’s protection does not come into play until the government has committed itself to prosecution. See United States ex rel. Hall v. Lane, 804 F.2d 79, 82 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1382, 94 L.Ed.2d 696 (1987). Clearly, the state was not committed to prosecuting Kladis during the brief period he remained in custody. He therefore had no Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the reason for his arrest. The Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable seizures might also provide a basis for the right to be informed of the reason for an arrest. However, the Fourth Amendment requires only that the police have probable cause to believe that an individual has broken the law before arresting him or her. See United States ex rel. LaBelle v. LaVallee, 517 F.2d 750, 754 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1062 , 96 S.Ct. 803, 46 L.Ed.2d 655 (1976); United States v. Dunavan, 485 F.2d 201, 205 (6th Cir.1973); Chaney v. Wainwright, 460 F.2d 1263, 1264 (5th Cir.1972). In this case, the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the police had probable cause to believe that Kladis had committed a crime. Although the police would do well to inform arrested persons of the charges against them, the Fourth Amendment does not require the police to do so.

[DrDeth]

@Bear_Nenno

So basically you are saying that you have no knowledge of the matter, but your Google search turned up some unofficial statements on the ACLU’s website. Got it.
That’s the problem with people trying to answer questions with Google.

.

No, the ACLU site is a well known and oft quoted cite on what to do when arrested and what your rights are. I have used it before, and none of the SDMB legal eagles have ever had a quibble with it. Thus, it is quoting a well known and reliable cite. It’s hardly some random Google answer.

[DrDeth]

@Bear_Nenno

FOUND IT! Kladis v Brezek.
http://vlex.com/vid/danny-kladis-leonard-brezek-shilling-37161770

In 1987, the 7th Circuit concluded that neither the 6th nor the 4th amendment provided the suspect the right to be informed of the reason for the arrest.
The obligation to inform him does not occur until the government actual commits itself to prosecution. And as I said, this happens at arraignment.

Well, you have to read what they say "If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why. " The ACLU does not say they have to inform you of all charges at the time of arrest.
But please feel free to write the ACLU, please feel free to inform such legal authorities like Ruth Bader Ginsburg- Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. that they are wrong and you are right.

[Bear_Nenno]

@DrDeth

Well, you have to read what they say "If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why. " The ACLU does not say they have to inform you of all charges at the time of arrest.

And as I said, they seem to imply this on the website. And when I asked about this specifically, instead of agreeing with me when I stated that it isn’t required to tell a person why he is arrested until hours or even days after the arrest, you simply said I didn’t know what I was talking about cause it’s the ACLU!
Just admit you have no idea what you’re talking about.

But please feel free to write the ACLU, please feel free to inform such legal authorities like Ruth Bader Ginsburg- Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. that they are wrong and you are right.

I could wirte them and say that their website is misleading and tell them that this is the cause of many people resisting arrest while screaming “You have to tell me why you’re arresting me! You have to tell me!”
But they likely would not reply.
I could also write them about their claim that a person is free to leave if he isn’t under arrest. This is obviously false, as I have pointed out. A person can be legally detained while not under arrest. They likely would not reply to that email either. So why waste my time?
IDF gotta go.

[Bear_Nenno]

Okay, I’m back.
Anyway, I will go ahead and send them email. We’ll see what they have to say. I am guessing it will identical to the whole Rod Powers and about.com thing, and they won’t even reply. I’ll let you know.

[DrDeth]

@Bear_Nenno

And as I said, they seem to imply this on the website. And when I asked about this specifically, instead of agreeing with me when I stated that it isn’t required to tell a person why he is arrested until hours or even days after the arrest, you simply said I didn’t know what I was talking about cause it’s the ACLU!
Just admit you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I could wirte them and say that their website is misleading and tell them that this is the cause of many people resisting arrest while screaming “You have to tell me why you’re arresting me! You have to tell me!”
But they likely would not reply.
I could also write them about their claim that a person is free to leave if he isn’t under arrest. This is obviously false, as I have pointed out. A person can be legally detained while not under arrest. They likely would not reply to that email either. So why waste my time?
o.

Well, if there’s a conflict between an Org that is so univeraslly respected and recognized as the ACLU (even if they are controversial, and I don’t always agree with them) and the idea that perhaps a poster that is a teeny bit biased towards the Police might just possibly have misread or jumped to conclusions, I think the choice is obvious.

I actually do, but since some people jump all over any poster who isnt a lawyer for “giving legal advice” I let my cite do the talking. Thus, I am not giving advice, opinion or anything but a cite.

Bricker and Gfactor have explained the small legal gradients and differences between “arrested” and “detained” and what not elsewhere. I’ll shoot them a PM and ask them to return here and explain.

I will also ask Gfactor to give us his opinion on the trustworthness in general of stuff on the ACLU site. Whether or not that they are “not legitimate” as you claimed.

[Gfactor]

While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required.

---

Even absent a requirement that an individual be informed of the reason for arrest when he is taken into custody, he will not be left to wonder for long. “[P]ersons arrested without a warrant must promptly be brought before a neutral magistrate for a judicial determination of probable cause.” County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U. S. 44, 53 (1991)

Devenpeck v. Alford, (SCOTUS 2004) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-710

From Does the arresting officer have to tell you “on what charge.”

[Gfactor]

On a related television meme, see that “one phonecall” when people are arrested.

The OP might appreciate:What to Expect When Going to Jail: The Booking Process American Chronicle, March 17, 2007.

[Gfactor]

@Gfactor

Devenpeck v. Alford, (SCOTUS 2004) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-710

From Does the arresting officer have to tell you “on what charge.”

While there is no constitutional requirement for this information, some state laws require it. E.g., http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/269#cont270:

P.C. § 841: Information to be Provided: The person making the arrest must inform the person being arrested of the following:

* The intention to arrest him;
* The cause of the arrest (i.e., the charges); and
* The authority to make it.

(People v. Superior Court (Logue) (1973) 35 Cal.App.3rd 1, 5.)

Exceptions: There is no need to comply with the above when:

* The person making the arrest has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is actually engaged in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, an offense (See People v. Darnell (1951) 107 Cal.App.2nd 541 545; People v. Thomas (1957) 156 Cal.App.2nd 117, 130; People v. Valenzuela (1959) 171 Cal.App.2nd 331, 333.); or
* The person to be arrested is pursued immediately after commission of the offense, or after an escape. (See People v. Pool (1865) 27 Cal. 572, 576; Allen v. McCoy (1933) 135 Cal.App. 500, 508; People v. Campbell (1972) 27 Cal.App.3rd 849, 854; and Johanson v. Department of Motor Vehicles (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1218.)

Even where an exception applies, if the arrestee asks what he or she is being arrested for, he or she must be told. (P.C. § 841)

Same with phone calls:

Right to Telephone Calls:

Right to Telephone Calls, per P.C. § 851.5: An arrested person has the right, immediately after booking and, except when physically impossible, no later than three (3) hours after arrest, to make at least three (3) completed telephone calls. The calls are to be free if completed in the local calling area, and are at the arrestee’s expense if outside the local area. The calls must be allowed immediately on request, or as soon as practicable. The calls may be made to:

* An attorney of the arrestee's choice, public defender, or other attorney assigned to assist indigents (which may not be monitored).
* A bail bondsman.
* A relative or other person.

This information, including the phone number of the public defender or other attorney assigned to assist indigent defendants, must be posted.

An arrestee who is identified during the booking process as a custodial parent of a minor child is entitled to make two additional (for a total of five) local telephone calls for the purpose of arranging child care. (subd. (c))

If the arrestee so requests, the three telephone calls shall be allowed “immediately,” or as soon as is practicable. (subd. (d))

This section is not intended to “abrogate a law enforcement officer’s duty to advise a suspect of his or her right to counsel or of any other right.” (subd. (e))

It is a misdemeanor to willfully deprive an arrested person of these rights. (subd. (f))

The only recognized exception to this rule is “physical impossibility.” (Carlo v. City of Chino (9th Cir. 1997) 105 F.3d 493.)

However, the alleged fact that defendants were denied right to call an attorney immediately after they were booked had no bearing on admissibility of any extrajudicial statements made prior to time when defendants were booked. (People v. Stout (1967) 66 Cal.2nd 184.)

http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/277

And:
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=beeheh&searchTerm=eiSb.SDYa.aadj.ecTg&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW (Iowa case on right to phone call).