It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police No Longer Need to Explain an Arrest

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jazzgul
For the rest - hope you are right Nydgan - but this whole situation smells fishy to me

Its definitely got a great potential for abuse, if they don't have to file immeadiately as to why a person was arrested. Say, for example, they arrest you on suspiscion of serveral things, and they only tell you its because of this pot that they found in your car, and then they bring you in and start filing their reports and list that it was the pot, plus you were acting suspiscious, and were speeding and didn't have a seat belt and certainly appeared to be intoxicated along with posession. And later, a judge decides that that pot was either not enough to warrant arrest or not obtained legally (whatever) and that that charge is thrown out. Should the guy then be able to sue for wrongful arrest? This seems to say, no, because there were other reasons for the arrest that were valid. But again, those reasons need to be formally stated and recorded if they aren't specifically told to you, or else they could just make something else up afterwards.




posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
according to kozmo:

Police have NEVER had to inform you at the time of your arrest the reason for the arrest, in fact, they have 48 hours in which to hold you before they have to submit formal charges for your arrest, otherwise you are to be released. They do, however, have to inform you of your miranda rights. Now, as one poster erroneaously stated, you DO have the right to remain silent under the 5th Ammendement protection to not incriminate yourself.

Whereas it is a general courtesy for the police to inform you of the charges at the time of arrest, there is no law or statute that requires it. The Supreme Court's decision is simply an affirmation of the existing laws as they have been for over 200 years.

Im not familiar with US law, but this sounds logically to me. And yes - Nydgan, police might abuse this law -and I think it happened before and will happen in future (when I visited LA first time I was advised to get lawyer first, because everything could happen)



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
[Its definitely got a great potential for abuse, if they don't have to file immeadiately as to why a person was arrested. Say, for example, they arrest you on suspiscion of serveral things, and they only tell you its because of this pot that they found in your car, and then they bring you in and start filing their reports and list that it was the pot, plus you were acting suspiscious, and were speeding and didn't have a seat belt and certainly appeared to be intoxicated along with posession. And later, a judge decides that that pot was either not enough to warrant arrest or not obtained legally (whatever) and that that charge is thrown out. Should the guy then be able to sue for wrongful arrest? This seems to say, no, because there were other reasons for the arrest that were valid. But again, those reasons need to be formally stated and recorded if they aren't specifically told to you, or else they could just make something else up afterwards.


Um, yes and no. Of course anyone with ANY amount of power or authoirty over another human being leads to abuses. Simply look at Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Kim Jong Il etc... Your example above happens every single day in America to hundreds of people. That is why you are afforded Constitutional Protections and the Bill of Rights which mandates due process under the law. If a judge or jury deems that the charges against you do not warrant a jail sentence or a conviction, you are acquitted and set free. If the judge or jury feels that the charges levied against you are justified, you are sentenced.

NOW, before any of that happens you are given a preliminary hearing or bond hearing where the judge reads the formal charges against you, advises you of your rights, asks you if you would like to enter a plea (Which you do not have to do at this time) and then determines if you are eligible for bond or if you will be held without bond (more serious crimes). This is all part of due process and and CANNOT be tampered with.

On a final note, anyone who has been arrested then acquitted is welcome to file wrongful arrest charges and demand a hearing. However, I will wish you the best of luck in actually getting a hearing. The evidence that you were arrested with prejudice of malice MUST be evident and compelling beyond a reasonable doubt before a judge would even allow such a case to proceed.

In short, our legal system works pretty well, despite crooked cops and bad eggs.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Did you know police can legally lie and/or mislead you to try to get you to incriminate yourself? They can also lie about your rights, and trick you into volunteering to do things you don't have to do. If you're ever arrested, don't waste your time talking to the cops. They're definitely not your friends. Consult a lawyer immediately.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   
^ 100% true. Cops will lie there way to get anything they want. This ruling is amazing because the ability to abuse it is so widespread. 48 hours is a huge amount of time to build a case and prevent you from doing things. Cops could have an idea who committed a serious crime, arrest the individual without telling him they are in anyway on to him and then build there case from there. How many times does a criminal immediately seek out a deal in hopes of reducing there punishment? This now offers cops not only the ability to arrest and take a confession when they don't have enough evidence to convict (I don't see this as a problem) but also to take confessions from people who they don't even have the power to arrest.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   

also to take confessions from people who they don't even have the power to arrest.


And for every case like this, there are 75 others in which a man with blood dripping from the knife in his hands gets acquitted because his confession was done without an attorney present.

This isn't as one sided a situation as some web outlets would have you believe.



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Yo all tbose mother fcaosdjkers can screw off dfood. and Cops will say whatevrty to get you introubly right? well all tsdkjbhfsduiyhb I chysr gotta say well all you cops I am hjaving blast anbd you cant stop me,. hahyahaha!



posted on Dec, 19 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
they have 48 hours in which to hold you before they have to submit formal charges for your arrest, otherwise you are to be released.






Here in Missouri it's only 20 hours then they either have to charge you or let you go.




The police have always use probable cause to get around having a reason to arrest or search you...They aren't suppose to be able to just stop you on the street and ask for somekind of identification but they do it anyway...and it's usually either go along with it or get a hard way to go.



[edit on 19-12-2004 by Simon_Boudreaux]



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Sure, probable cause to the police can be anything...even an outright lie. "Oh, I thought I smelled pot smoke." or "I thought he swerved." Anything can be used (or lied about) as "probable cause." And don't even get me started on K9 units and sniffer dogs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join