Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Case Law Help...arrest Warrants

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Case Law Help...arrest Warrants

    Can't seem to find the actual case law pertaining to Arrest warrants and detaining/arresting those who come back from dispatch as having an active warrant.

    In other words, you identify a person and verify with dispatch or MDT that the person is wanted on an arrest warrant and you then arrest said person without actually having the paper warrant in your possession, this acting on good faith that their is a verified and actual warrant for the person.

    I remember seeing it and being taught it but I can't find the actual law it pertains to....I am in PA if there is anything specific according to my state.

    I was asked this the other day by someone and I was unable to point them to a specific case law.

    Thanks,

    G-man
    1*

  • #2
    I know its not help but our policy is that our dispatch has a warrant confirmation in hand. There usually is a "hit" then they can call and get "Verbal" meaning their dispatch told our dispatch its good. We Always waut until the agency holding the warrant sends a teletype warrant confirmation. Just my $0.02

    FYI- If I inderstand correctly they have up to 30mins to send a hit response (confirmation)

    Comment


    • #3
      I found the information in NC's arrest, search and investigation in NC written by our legal eagle Robert Farb. It states we have the authority to make the arrest when we know the warrant exists even if its not in hand, but it does NOT give a case law, merely states that it is the same arrest authority regardless.
      sigpic

      I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect its straightforwardness in terms of wrongness.

      Comment


      • #4
        Basically if a reliable source (like your dispatch) tells you there is a valid warrant for their arrest that is probable cause to make the arrest.
        Today's Quote:

        "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
        Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #5
          PA Law should have something similar to California's Penal Code, which says:

          842. An arrest by a peace officer acting under a warrant is lawful
          even though the officer does not have the warrant in his possession
          at the time of the arrest, but if the person arrested so requests it,
          the warrant shall be shown to him as soon as practicable.
          Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

          Comment


          • #6
            Ours is similar to what L-1 wrote except we MUST provide the warrant to the person within reasonable time.
            sigpic

            I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect its straightforwardness in terms of wrongness.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by fordman318
              I know its not help but our policy is that our dispatch has a warrant confirmation in hand. There usually is a "hit" then they can call and get "Verbal" meaning their dispatch told our dispatch its good. We Always waut until the agency holding the warrant sends a teletype warrant confirmation. Just my $0.02

              FYI- If I inderstand correctly they have up to 30mins to send a hit response (confirmation)
              An entry or a verbal statement over a phone is not near enough.

              I don't arrest unless my dispatch gets a written confirmation via teletype within a reasonable time. When my dispatcher tells me they have a copy of the warrant or a proper teletype from the other agency, then I'll arrest. If after all that, it turns out that the warrant had already been executed and the entry never removed, liability rests with that other agency.

              I have cut a few loose because the agency responsible for the entry failed to provide the needed response in such reasonable time.

              T150V ain't getting sued.
              "That's right man, we've got mills here that'll blow that heap of your's right off the road."

              "Beautiful Daughter of the Stars."(it's my home now)

              >>>>> A Time for Choosing <<<<<

              Retired @ 31yr 2mo as of 0000 hrs. 01-01-10. Yeah, all in all, it was good.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by t150vsuptpr View Post
                An entry or a verbal statement over a phone is not near enough.

                I don't arrest unless my dispatch gets a written confirmation via teletype within a reasonable time. When my dispatcher tells me they have a copy of the warrant or a proper teletype from the other agency, then I'll arrest. If after all that, it turns out that the warrant had already been executed and the entry never removed, liability rests with that other agency.

                I have cut a few loose because the agency responsible for the entry failed to provide the needed response in such reasonable time.

                T150V ain't getting sued.
                Exactly right. If it's from MY county I will contact the jail personally, have them check their hard copies and verify that one exists. Then the dispatch center has to do their confirmation paperwork.

                The "reasonable amount of time" is, I believe, set at or around 15 minutes for the requesting agency to receive confirmation from the agency holding the warrant.

                If my agency can't get a teletype confirmation back within 15 minutes, I'll cut the person loose. If the warrant is for something like a Murder, Rape, Child Molest, etc. I'll wait a little bit longer and detain them for maybe 20-25 minutes prior to releasing if there is no response.
                Originally posted by K40
                To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Smurfette_76 View Post
                  Ours is similar to what L-1 wrote except we MUST provide the warrant to the person within reasonable time.
                  Ours as well. If we arrest on a warrant from an outside county, that county sends the warrant via fax, to our jail. When I arrive at the jail, I "serve" the warrant my reading it to the subject and then signing it. The signed copy goes to the court. If for some reason a fax machine isn't available at the agency holding the warrant (yes, it happens) then the warrant is "served" at an initial court appearance for the subject.
                  Originally posted by K40
                  To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                  ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You are fine on detaining someone as long as it takes to actively confirm or dispel criminal activity is a foot. If that means keeping someone for 50 mins while the warrant is being confirmed so be it. As long as you can document you are actually attempting to confirm the warrant you are fine. Althought NCIC has given the option of 10 min requests meaning MOST of the time you should know within 15-20 mins of your request.

                    There is case law stating that you can arrest without having the actual warrant in your hand.

                    There is also recent case law stating that a "good faith" arrest on a warrant is fine. If you have been confirmed the warrant and lock the person up, find weed, then later it's found out the warrant was recalled you are still fine if it's made in good faith.

                    I'm detaining someone as long as it takes to confirm the warrant period. Every 10 mins or so I might bug dispatch to see what's taking so long just to mind my P's and Q's. I'll put up my articulation against the "unreasonable seziure" arguement any day of the week in this case. I'd rather hold a potential suspect for an extended legal time span rather then not serve an arrest warrant issued via the courts. I imagine most judges (usually who issues warrants) wont have a problem with this.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Name Taken View Post
                      You are fine on detaining someone as long as it takes to actively confirm or dispel criminal activity is a foot. If that means keeping someone for 50 mins while the warrant is being confirmed so be it. As long as you can document you are actually attempting to confirm the warrant you are fine. Althought NCIC has given the option of 10 min requests meaning MOST of the time you should know within 15-20 mins of your request.

                      There is case law stating that you can arrest without having the actual warrant in your hand.

                      There is also recent case law stating that a "good faith" arrest on a warrant is fine. If you have been confirmed the warrant and lock the person up, find weed, then later it's found out the warrant was recalled you are still fine if it's made in good faith.

                      I'm detaining someone as long as it takes to confirm the warrant period. Every 10 mins or so I might bug dispatch to see what's taking so long just to mind my P's and Q's. I'll put up my articulation against the "unreasonable seziure" arguement any day of the week in this case. I'd rather hold a potential suspect for an extended legal time span rather then not serve an arrest warrant issued via the courts. I imagine most judges (usually who issues warrants) wont have a problem with this.
                      There is a hit response requirement, which states that a hit response must be received within a set period of time. After that, it's been found that the detention is no longer reasonable, and thus unlawful. I'm fairly certain it's a 15 minute time period. If you're detaining somebody for 50 minutes to determine if they have a warrant, there's a good chance you're going to end up sued, and lose.
                      Originally posted by K40
                      To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                      ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mdrdep View Post
                        Basically if a reliable source (like your dispatch) tells you there is a valid warrant for their arrest that is probable cause to make the arrest.

                        Same as here. For 90% of our warrants once it is in the system the destroy the original. Its a paperless system except for old warrants. We no longer have to verify a warrant if is in the current system for our state. The old ones and out of state warrants we still have to verify.

                        Our Standard for getting those verified before releasing them is around 20 minutes. Thats based on case law for an investigatory detention on something like a traffic stop etc. There are always exceptions such as a muder warrant etc.
                        The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
                          There is a hit response requirement, which states that a hit response must be received within a set period of time. After that, it's been found that the detention is no longer reasonable, and thus unlawful. I'm fairly certain it's a 15 minute time period. If you're detaining somebody for 50 minutes to determine if they have a warrant, there's a good chance you're going to end up sued, and lose.
                          Again I'll respectfully disagree.

                          As long as you are prudent in your attempt to verify it then so be it. There are case laws regarding this on several different situations.

                          At the end of the day why are you detaining the person? Because you have reasonable suspicion that there is an active warrant for them. You can detain them for as long as needed to confirm or dispell this as long as it's reasonable.

                          With that being said NCIC sends it's URGENT hits within 10 mins...or atleast are supposed to. So in theory you can find out in 10 mins according to them.

                          I've been in situations where I've personally sent the hit request 3 times (So we are up to 30 mins before even getting the request to do it) before they were able to get back to me due to them being busy. I print off the copy of my sent messages for filing. Hard to say someone isnt making prudent attempts at this point.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Name Taken View Post
                            Again I'll respectfully disagree.

                            As long as you are prudent in your attempt to verify it then so be it. There are case laws regarding this on several different situations.

                            At the end of the day why are you detaining the person? Because you have reasonable suspicion that there is an active warrant for them. You can detain them for as long as needed to confirm or dispell this as long as it's reasonable.

                            With that being said NCIC sends it's URGENT hits within 10 mins...or atleast are supposed to. So in theory you can find out in 10 mins according to them.

                            I've been in situations where I've personally sent the hit request 3 times (So we are up to 30 mins before even getting the request to do it) before they were able to get back to me due to them being busy. I print off the copy of my sent messages for filing. Hard to say someone isnt making prudent attempts at this point.
                            I appreciate you disagreeing respectfully, hard to find that here. There is a reasonable suspicion that they MIGHT be the wanted party, however, that doesn't mean you can hold them there for an hour while waiting. The whole reason there is a hit response confirmation is to avoid a police officer unreasonably detaining somebody for an hour.

                            I've seen officer reprimanded and threatened with lawsuits for detaining people for 45 minutes, an hour, 90 minutes waiting for the warrant hits to come back valid or no. There is a standard in place, and violating it will get you sued. If after the required waiting time you don't have your answer, you're illegally detaining them and they're supposed to be let go.
                            Originally posted by K40
                            To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                            ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I agree with Name Taken. So long as you are actively continuing to prove or disprove your PC for the detention, you're covered. There is no "required" wait time.
                              sigpic

                              I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect its straightforwardness in terms of wrongness.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 2848 users online. 179 members and 2669 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X