Search & Seizure errrr ahhh...

[Smitty]

Today we had an 8 hour block of instruction on all of this stuff. I'm studying it here right now so that I can remain top dog on the block exams. Something is confusing me though:

You have "reasonable suspicion" so you "stop" the individual. No probable cause yet. From what I understand he/she is then obligated to acknowledge your presence and talk to you.

Don't the courts like to define an "arrest" as when the suspect feels like they have lost their freedom? If you can handcuff a person on a "stop" and even sit them in your car, isn't their freedom taken away the moment he/she is obligated to talk to you?

Maybe my brain is fried....am I reading to much into it? Just kinda confusing.

[Jynkxxie]

Well funny I am studying the same thing...LOL

I also asked the same question tonight that you did...It is only if a REASONABLE person is lead to believe that they are not free to go. LOL Whatever REASONABLE means now a days. If the cops stop you on RS you do not have to talk to them at all...If I remember correctly what we talked about tonight.

And they can on RS TEMPORARILY DETAIN you. Back of the car, cuffs, questioning...etc. That is not an arrest. You are not under arrest until they tell you that you are under arrest. Until they do you should assume you are not and I guess if you are guilty maintain your Federal 5th Amendment right. LOL

Did I get that correct? Or am I too going to start pulling my hair out?

[Jynkxxie]

DC, I know you are gonna hit me right over the head with that pan you are holding...but could you please go into that custodian thing a little more?

[Henry_1097]

First of all, I'm not a LEO but I hope to be one eventually. I'm majoring in Criminal Justice and I recently took a class that delt with this subject. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of a detention is when a reasonable person feels that they are no longer free to leave. That differs from an arrest because you are not charging them with a specific crime. However, you can place them in handcuffs, pat them down, or place them in the back of your squad car for your protection and theirs if need be without them being under arrest. You can ask the person what his/her business was there and other general question. You would only need to Mirandize them if you were asking accusatory questions and only hold them for a "reasonable" amount of time. Other than that, the person is not under arrest unless you charge them with a specific crime. Am I correct?

[Jynkxxie]

See, I heard differently. You don't have to Mirandize them to ask them questions. You are questioning them to find possible PC. Most of the cops that I know, don't Mirandze, they just don't ask questions once the person is arrested. They let the suspect do the talking on the way to the station and they let the Detective Mirandize when he/she starts their questioning.

[rdp]

There is no reason to Mirandize someone unless you have proof a crime has been committed. Most stops are done and questions are asked to see if a crime has been committed. The officer has no idea until they ask. Remember, it applies to custodial interrogation.........Think of the DUI stop where you ask about alcohol consumption, illness, drug use, and so on......

If you have a crime that is alleged or committed and you plan on asking about the offense, you need to do the Miranda.......or you can ask him anything besides the crime and not need it at all.

[TALLON]

Don't citizens need to be Mirandized once the officer applies the following two: Custody(handcuffs) & Questioning. Can a citizen be questioned in handcuffs without being Mirandized and if so, is it open to legal challenge?

If the suspect was handcuffed, questioned and released...no prob. But if an arrest follows the first two without Miranda, don't you have a problem?

[rob1982]

That is confusing to me as well. If I am in handcuffs I feel that I'm arrested. You're arrested if you're pulled over for speeding so how are you not arrested when you take me out and put me in handcuffs? I was with a group of guys when I was younger and all of us were taken out of the car and sat by the road because the officer swore we had drugs and were bashing mailboxes and I felt arrested then. We were not in handcuffs but were all standing there while he searched the car and his partner had his gun out "watching" us. The best part was instead of believing us that we had nothing and that we were just going to a friends house he spent a half hour searching and even used a K-9 and found nothing. I asked him why he arrested us without any proof of doing anything and he said it was for our protection we were out of the car and the other officer was watching us with his gun out. Yeah I felt safe.

[TALLON]

So an officer can walk up to me on the street in a business suit walking to lunch, put the cuffs on me and ask me my name? Assume this occurs. I say, while in cuffs, do I have any rights not to answer these questions after providing ID.

Please explain this to me like I'm a 5 yr old. (Without any reference to BARNEY)

[lawdawg]

They need reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has taken place to do that. Did a guy in a suit the same color as yours just rob a bank down the block? It would be reasonable to not only question you, but frisk you for weapons as well (pat down of outer clothing); I don't know about putting you in cuffs though; guess that's a judgment call.

See Terry v. Ohio.

[Lfpdlieu302]

So an officer can walk up to me on the street in a business suit walking to lunch, put the cuffs on me and ask me my name? Assume this occurs. I say, while in cuffs, do I have any rights not to answer these questions after providing ID.

Please explain this to me like I'm a 5 yr old. (Without any reference to BARNEY)

simply put yes and no...lol

if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime is or has been committed then yes he can detain you. if he has no reasonable suspicion then he cant just walk up to you and place the love bracelets on. if you are detained, and you give all the required info, you really dont have to answer any more. remember the only time miranda is required is custodial interrogation, not a custodial interview. once i (an officer) has made the fact finding interview, into an accusatory interrogation, miranda would then need to be read.

[Jynkxxie]

So an officer can walk up to me on the street in a business suit walking to lunch, put the cuffs on me and ask me my name? Assume this occurs. I say, while in cuffs, do I have any rights not to answer these questions after providing ID.

Please explain this to me like I'm a 5 yr old. (Without any reference to BARNEY)

O.k. if they got the description that a man in a business suit just commited some kind of crime, and they see you, in a business suit, then yeah they can stop and question you. They may pat you down for officer safety if the crime that they are pursuing included the use of a weapon, and they may throw you in cuffs and put you in the back of the car, again for thier safety while they check out your information. You do have the 5th amendment right to not say anything. Am I correct?

Also, I was told at this point they do not need to Mirandize you until you are under arrest and they want to ask you questions pertaining to the crime in question. They can ask you questions prior to that...they are just not admissable...Right? Now this whole Miranda/and Custodial thing is what is confusing to me from the comments above.

[Lfpdlieu302]

Also, I was told at this point they do not need to Mirandize you until you are under arrest and they want to ask you questions pertaining to the crime in question. They can ask you questions prior to that...they are just not admissable...Right? Now this whole Miranda/and Custodial thing is what is confusing to me from the comments above.

believe it or not, its actually that simple, you've got it. ;)

[Jynkxxie]

YEAH!!!!!!!

You have no idea how crazy confusing that this gets for me sometimes.

[Jynkxxie]

O.k. but my next question is...LOL

If the officers are questioning you, on RS, trying to get PC, how could you do that without asking questions about the crime in question? Or am I reading to far into it?

Is asking questions about the crime related to the details of the crime?

And the questioning that you are allowed to do without mirandizing (sp) to get PC, are questions that would only link said person to said crime?