# Why were Pedro and Onil Castro Arrested? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 8, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845 "2013-05-08T22:05:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/61 "2013-05-13T17:47:50Z")
CNN posted a three part interview with the brothers. > **[Video News - CNN](https://www.cnn.com/videos)** > > Watch breaking news videos, viral videos and original video clips on CNN.com. > **[Video News - CNN](https://www.cnn.com/videos)** > > Watch breaking news videos, viral videos and original video clips on CNN.com. > **[Video News - CNN](https://www.cnn.com/videos)** > > Watch breaking news videos, viral videos and original video clips on CNN.com. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/62 "2013-05-13T18:09:39Z")
Both brothers said the cops wouldn’t tell them why they were being arrested. Pedro thought it was for an old open container warrant. Pedro helped an officer in the jail to translate for another prisoner. He asked her then to look up his charges. I’m not sure how the cops get away with doing that. But can understand its effective in keeping suspects confused and easy to question. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/63 "2013-05-13T18:15:56Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > If he feels they can hold people for 72 hours for nothing at all, they did, at least part of it, so he should have no problem with arrest. Okay, I don’t know what is happening here. Let me clarify. I am wondering whether you or any other doper knowledgeable in the law thinks that what the LEO did in the story I referenced was illegal or actionable in some other way. I am not refering in any way to **JBDivmstr** ’s opinion or his argument. All that is happening is, I am, after reading that story, curious to know whether the arrest was legal. That is all. Still interested in your reply. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/64 "2013-05-13T19:13:11Z")
If the brothers were completely innocent, this sucks for them too, but the one to blame for their problems is not the media or the police, but their brother. ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/65 "2013-05-13T19:42:00Z")
My apologies for the earlier hijack of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/66 "2013-05-13T20:27:12Z")
> [@madsircool](#): > > Its pretty hard to believe that family members would have been kept in the darkfor 10 years; its a 1400 sq foot house…being able to prove it is another matter. The family has not been exonerated in any way. > > The death penalty was made for this guy; his very survival will trigger anxoety for the rest of his victims lives. > [@LMarie](#): > > Who said anything about searching his house? I just said that it’s hard to imagine that the brother’s didn’t know. Just because something is hard to imagine, though, doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible. This was not the family house, and the fact that the women did not know, recognize, or incriminate the other two brothers, from what we’ve heard - suggests they did not wander into his house and poke around. Not sure what your family is in the habit of doing, but I don’t feel it is my place to wander into my relatives’ houses or for them to help themselves into mine. > [@Learjeff](#): > > If the brothers were completely innocent, this sucks for them too, but the one to blame for their problems is not the media or the police, but their brother. At the very least, they could have told them what they were under arrest for. As I understand, this is a requirement when you are arrested. Of course, “legally required” obviously means nothing, especially when the police think you are a henious criminal and nobody will care when you complain about formalities. I thnk the police jumped to conclusions and now have to backpedal hard. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/67 "2013-05-13T20:50:24Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > But its only relatively recent that causing miscarriage, even by assault and obviously deliberate and premeditated, is considered murder. It was only the harm to the women that could be prosecuted over.. > > I guess its a new law.. a test case. The lack of previous use of a law doesn’t prevent a new law being used the first time.. How else can a new law be used ? > > Well this is a new use of the law. Did any prosecutor ever try for the death penalty over 5 murders by inducing miscarriage ? Scott Peterson was convicted of TWO counts of murder, one for his wife Laci and the other for her unborn child, Conner. This case led to the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004. This law “recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.” > **[Unborn Victims of Violence Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act)** > > The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines this term, “child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." > The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1... ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/68 "2013-05-14T14:23:43Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I am wondering whether you or any other doper knowledgeable in the law thinks that what the LEO did in the story I referenced was illegal or actionable in some other way. My understanding was that the 2 brothers had outstanding warrants for minor offenses, and that is why they were arrested when they were run through the records, NOT because of the so called “guilt by association”. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/69 "2013-05-14T14:58:45Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb” Most states have thier own version’s and define when the fetus has rights, whether at birth or a certain month, etc. Ohio’s below is a circumstance where the death penalty can be sought, aggravated murder. 2903.01 Aggravated murder. A) No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/70 "2013-05-14T15:52:04Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > My understanding was that the 2 brothers had outstanding warrants for minor offenses, and that is why they were arrested when they were run through the records, NOT because of the so called “guilt by association”. I have to apologize profusely for my lack of clarity here. Let me attempt this again. **JBDivmstr** above described an incident in which he was arrested in an ice house. After reading that story, I was wondering whether the arrest was illegal or in some other way actionably improper. I imagine legally knowledgable dopers may have informed opinions about this. And I was asking for those opinions. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/71 "2013-05-14T16:02:01Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I have to apologize profusely for my lack of clarity here. > > Let me attempt this again. > > **JBDivmstr** above described an incident in which he was arrested in an ice house. After reading that story, I was wondering whether the arrest was illegal or in some other way actionably improper. I imagine legally knowledgable dopers may have informed opinions about this. And I was asking for those opinions. Oh, I see now, my error also. You are refering to post 49, to wit: > [@](#): > > You’re under arrest." > “What in the world, for?!” > “Public intoxication.” > “Sir, I haven’t even had a beer, yet.” (I had just got off of work and hadn’t even consumed any alcohol. Besides the fact, that I wasn’t ‘in public’.) > At this point, I was getting a little ‘peaved’, if you know what I mean, so I stated, “I want to take a ‘sobriety test’, I am not intoxicated!” Taken as truth, he says he did not even have a beer yet, of course we were not there. Let’s assume he was sober, then the arrest is false and actionable as a violation of the 4th AM, and other counts. Since we were not there, there is no way to say if it was an UNconstitutional arrest. PI must be more than a person with alcohol on thier breath. That’s the best way I can answer it. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/72 "2013-05-14T16:04:45Z")
Okay, that’s what I was wondering about, thanks for the opinion. I do always hedge in my thinking about these things “assuming the truth of these statements,” knowing that in the real world they might turn out not to be true for all I know. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/73 "2013-05-14T17:05:58Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > Oh, I see now, my error also. > > You are refering to post 49, to wit: > > Taken as truth, he says he did not even have a beer yet, of course we were not there. > > Let’s assume he was sober, then the arrest is false and actionable as a violation of the 4th AM, and other counts. > > Since we were not there, there is no way to say if it was an UNconstitutional arrest. > > PI must be more than a person with alcohol on thier breath. > > That’s the best way I can answer it. Of course, he wasn’t even in public when arrested. The only thing the police saw him do in public was walk into a bar. (There’s a punchline somewhere). So the question is, even if he raised holy hell lawyer-wise, what are the odds any judge is going to do anything about it? I saw part of the interview with the brothers on CNN. The one said he hadn’t been beyond th kitchen the few times he was in the home, the other had helped around the yard and with car work in the garage, but had not even been in the house. The way their names and photos were spalshed across the news, they were arrested in relation to the kidnapping case, although the weasley wording meant they were not directly accused. Like I said earlier, i asume the police went with the idea they had caught a trio of scumbuckets and so there would be no grounds for complaining about what information was leaked. Now they have to backpedal fast. ---
**Author:** ![LMarie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c68b51/32.png) [@LMarie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LMarie)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/74 "2013-05-14T18:56:09Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > This was not the family house, and the fact that the women did not know, recognize, or incriminate the other two brothers, from what we’ve heard - suggests they did not wander into his house and poke around. Not sure what your family is in the habit of doing, but I don’t feel it is my place to wander into my relatives’ houses or for them to help themselves into mine. I’m well aware that this was not a family home. I’m also well aware that three women were trapped inside of a home for nearly a decade…not a week or two, but 10 years. One even had a child who was held captive for six years. Infants and young children do tend to cry and make other noises that aren’t easily controlled or silenced. What my family does (or yours) really has no relevance in this conversation. My original statement stands. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/75 "2013-05-16T15:47:03Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Of course, he wasn’t even in public when arrested. The only thing the police saw him do in public was walk into a bar. Before he entered the bar, he was in a public place and after he entered the bar he was in a public place. Isn’t a bar a “public place” for purposes of a warrantless arrest? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/76 "2013-05-16T17:01:56Z")
> [@Ann\_Hedonia](#): > > Scott Peterson was convicted of TWO counts of murder, one for his wife Laci and the other for her unborn child, Conner. > > This case led to the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004. Not really. The bill was originally introduced in 1999, long before the Peterson murders. It was just associated with the case because it was the highest-profile foetal murder conviction. Note, in any event, that the UVVA applies only in federal cases (which are a tiny minority of homicide prosecutions.) [QUOTE=lawbuff] Isn’t a bar a “public place” for purposes of a warrantless arrest? [/QUOTE] A bar is a public place for nearly all purposes\*. It holds itself out as open for public custom. \*under the law of some states, a distinction is drawn between public (literal public property) and “quasi-public” places (private property open to the public, like a bar.) ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/77 "2013-05-16T17:41:28Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > Before he entered the bar, he was in a public place and after he entered the bar he was in a public place. > > Isn’t a bar a “public place” for purposes of a warrantless arrest? Depends what constitutes a “public place” for “being drunk in public”? I usually associate that with being out in the open. Of course, “public drunkedness” usually also requires some degree of misbehaviour; I suspect the police were expecting him to act drunk, and when he failed to, they decided to go ahead and arrest him and assume (correct, as it turns out) that there would be no consequences for their overzealous action. At least they were semi-honest enough to not show up in court and lie. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/78 "2013-05-17T15:33:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A bar is a public place for nearly all purposes\*. It holds itself out as open for public custom. Absent case law on being drunk in public, I will use this defintion from Ohio’s NON smoking law; 3794.01 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (A) “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other lighted smoking device for burning tobacco or any other plant. “Smoking” does not include the burning of incense in a religious ceremony. **(B) “Public place” means an enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted and that is not a private residence.** So, yes, any place the public is generally invited would be a "public place’ for warrantless arrest purposes, in any state I would imagine. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845/79 "2013-05-17T16:33:47Z")
The term is generally defined broadly. For example, a VA court held that a driveway visible from the street was a public place. > [@](#): > > Defendant’s assertion that the incident did not occur “in a public place,” but in “a driveway” on “private property,” is also without merit. The trial judge, “[r]esolving the conflict in the evidence,” made a specific factual finding that the fracas “occurred in a public place.” This conclusion finds ample support in the record. > > Keyes v. City of Virginia Beach, 16 Va. App. 198, 200, 428 S.E.2d 766, 768 (Va. Ct. App. 1993) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-were-pedro-and-onil-castro-arrested/657845.md?page=3)