Case Law Help...arrest Warrants

[PtlCop]

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.

Not what we've been instructed through our legal briefings and prosecutor's office. Could be a statewide thing, but we've been told that there is a requirement in place that the confirmation MUST come within 15 minutes for the detention to be deemed reasonable, after that...it's unreasonable.

I'm not doubting that it's different where you guys are, we tend to be pretty anti-police in this state...

[Smurfette_76]

What would you guys do if that was a murder warrant or child molestation warrant?

[PtlCop]

What would you guys do if that was a murder warrant or child molestation warrant?

On those, I call the originating agency direct, from the side of the road and have them check their hard copies. Once they've confirmed the hard copy of the warrant, i'll arrest them on it. Then, i'll have the "hit confirmation" paperwork started after I've confirmed it with the originating agency. Basically I cut out the middle man.

[G-MAN]

I actually had a situation where I had detained a party on a what I knew to be a felony warrant for indecent assault active for the person.

I work for the courts so I have access to the court records and court cases on my MDT in my vehicle. I was able to see that the court of common pleas judge issued a bench warrant for the person for FTA. The stupid thing is that I can't print the warrant...the system is not capable of doing this!

So....I/we contact county to confirm the warrant and as usual they either don't have a hard copy of the warrant or the person for whatever reason isn't listed in NCIC.....so for all intensive purposes other then my court information I can see in front of me in black and white I am being told by county..."Negaitve 30's" which I know is BS.

I have seen the police numerous times release the person at this point except when we are working we will run the person ourselves because we know how messedd up county is with this.

In our case it was after hours and the sheriff's department was closed, we were 99% certain this guy had a warrant and the guy even said he probably had a warrant with further questioning.

I had county call the on call sheriff out and the sheriff responded (1hr) and then had to go to the sheriff's department to get the actual hard copy.

In all this took 2hrs..... Yes we were risking our heads on the chopping block but knock on wood everytime we've done this there has always been a warrant.

In my defense I was able to clearly see there was a warrant, further questioning determined I had the right person and said person admitted he probably had a warrant since he missed court and throughout the entire ordeal I tried everything I could to get the warrant confirmed. My next step had it gone longer would be to call the on call DA for further advice.

In my job as a constable we are elected officials who do work for the courts in PA so we are technically our own bosses and even our judges who technically are our bosses can not give us direct orders concerning procedures due to the aspect that he is under the judicial branch of government, must remain neutral and we are not under jurisdiction of the courts. We rely heavily on outside sources such as police, sheriff's and DA's to do our job effectively and correctly pursuant to state and federal laws.

Like a sheriff's department each constable in PA is elected and operates his own office and therefore is responsible for their own policy and procedures. My policies mimic those of the city PD and Sheriff's department who are both fully state accredited.

G-man
1*

[PeteBroccolo]

Here is the authority, Canada-wide, pursuant to our Criminal Code (a compendium of a wide variety of criminal offences, enacted by the Federal Government, but administered and enforced by the Provincial, Territorial and Municipal Governments):

495. (1) A peace officer may arrest without warrant

(a) a person who has committed an indictable offence or who, on reasonable grounds, he believes has committed or is about to commit an indictable offence;

(b) a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence; or

(c) a person in respect of whom he has reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest or committal, in any form set out in Part XXVIII in relation thereto, is in force within the territorial jurisdiction in which the person is found.

The "...reasonable grounds to believe that a warrant of arrest...is in force..." can come from actually having a Warrant in hand (hardly ever happens) or by personal knowledge (i.e.: we are the investigator and have obtained the documents, but they are back at the office OR we got a "hit" on CPIC (kind-of like NCIC)).

CPIC rules require the arresting officer to obtain confirmation from the Agency holding the Warrant (which is usually the investigating / charging Agency as well as CPIC entering Agency) that the Warrant is valid, and the Warrant holding Agency must confirm ASAP or in a reasonable time period.

Most Warrants we are authorized to release on a variety of documents, with or without the promise, or actual posting, of a cash bail, with or without conditions, some of which the arresting officer, or the arresting officer's officer in charge, can impose.

There is no set time that I have ever heard of for the confirmation, as long as it is reasonable, given all circumstances. Releasing a "client" on a document for a future Court date, as opposed to holding the "client" in custody, would be seen as reasonable, but releasing the person without document OR lodging in cells could also be reasonable, and NOT considered an execution of the Warrant, if confirmation was not received in a reasonable time.

Most "clients" get released without paying a bail or spending time in jail, at least for the first FTA Court. #2 FTA would be cash bail. #3 means jail, show cause and remand, but not always. 1st, 2nd and 3rd would be for less serious matters, but it is entirely up to the Court.

[JLee]

Not what we've been instructed through our legal briefings and prosecutor's office. Could be a statewide thing, but we've been told that there is a requirement in place that the confirmation MUST come within 15 minutes for the detention to be deemed reasonable, after that...it's unreasonable.

I'm not doubting that it's different where you guys are, we tend to be pretty anti-police in this state...

20 minutes has been deemed reasonable for a traffic stop - why do you only get 15 minutes to confirm a warrant?

[PtlCop]

20 minutes has been deemed reasonable for a traffic stop - why do you only get 15 minutes to confirm a warrant?

Cause we're anti police I guess. The 20 minutes for a traffic stop isn't always reasonable. I lost a case about 6 months ago because I waited 18 minutes for a dog to arrive at my location. The defense attorney took an average of my stops for the year prior to that and the average time was about 9 minutes per stop (i've got an electronic citation program so I scan the license, it runs it through NCIC and the BMV then dumps it into a ticket/warning, same with the registration. It then prints out all in about a minute and a half).

The judge ruled it an unreasonable detention based on my previous traffic stop length, and that I had completed the stop and was waiting around only for the dog. He cited multiple cases as precedent for his ruling.

Now I take more time on the stops and at the end of the stop I take the time it was dispatched and the time I cleared it and put the difference in the notes. I'm back up to about a 14 to 15 minute average now.

The 20 minutes is a worst case scenario, but if your stops are only lasting an average of 10 minutes and you're holding someone for 20, you could lose like I did.

[Name Taken]

The judge ruled it an unreasonable detention based on my previous traffic stop length, and that I had completed the stop and was waiting around only for the dog. He cited multiple cases as precedent for his ruling.

I agree on this....there are cases regarding this. The detention is over once you are done writing the ticket(s). Cant prolong it unless actively working on the stop and can justify it just to get the dog there.

There IS however case law stating that if the K9 Officer is making a reasonable effort to get there (i.e. gets lost on his way) then an extended encounter is okay.

As is with everything...it's articulation and based off of the situation. What is okay today isnt tomorrow.

[PPDSWD]

My partner and I stop a guy and investigate him, run him and let him go. We find out a few minutes later that he was wanted by another jurisdiction. No we are mad cause this guy got away. We drive around and about ten minutes and find him. Well long story short, go to stop the guy again, crack recovered, fight in the street, I get hurt. Turns out the other jurisdiction doesn't want him anymore after we called when we got inside. Went to trial, all charges were held because we were acting in good faith and believed the warrant was good.

[PtlCop]

I agree on this....there are cases regarding this. The detention is over once you are done writing the ticket(s). Cant prolong it unless actively working on the stop and can justify it just to get the dog there.

There IS however case law stating that if the K9 Officer is making a reasonable effort to get there (i.e. gets lost on his way) then an extended encounter is okay.

As is with everything...it's articulation and based off of the situation. What is okay today isnt tomorrow.

Do you have the case law handy? I'd like to forward it to the prosecutor's office with a "look at this, dummies" letter.

[PhilipCal]

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

This is Alabama's requirement,almost verbatum. Another practical consideration, and this is usually covered in a Department's communication policies and procedures. Often, you'll get an NCIC "Hit" with regard to a warrant. The agency which entered the warrant must "confirm" it, and do so within a "reasonable time". There's no "magic number" here, but much more than thirty minutes will pretty much push that particular envelope.

[Name Taken]

Do you have the case law handy? I'd like to forward it to the prosecutor's office with a "look at this, dummies" letter.

Thecase they probably got you on is Ill. V Caballes which basically says according to my information that the drug scan is okay as long as it's conducted during the normal course of a legal stop. If you have RAS or consent you can prolong the stop to wait for the dog.

As for the case law pertaining to the extended duration of the stop due to K9 being lost I can not find it. I recently went to a Search and Seizure Seminar and recall I believe it was our ASA stating a recent case (like within a few weeks) where the stop was over however the K9 got lost on his way to the stop.

It's my understanding that you need to be preppered to defend this action and your account better match up to the K9's account as to him getting lost.

They (the courts) have said that the scan needs to be done prior to the stop being over and you can not legally extend the stop for this. My stops range from anywhere from 15-40 minutes depending...so I dont think you could call my bluff using averages as there really isnt an average traffic stop.

I would not use the case I'm thinking of to say it's okay to prolong the stop. However if the dog gets lost or something of that sort it MIGHT prevent the case from being tossed. At the end of the day the court isnt likely to buy into this arguement on a regular basis.

And obviously when stuff does get to court it's up in the air. We have a judge who has openly stated (in open court) that she does not believe in consent searches and tosses everyone out.

[westside popo]

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*

If memory serves me this practice evolved from several court decisions but I can't remember their style. It may take me some time to find them but when I do I will get back with you.
In GA (as per GCIC / NCIC) there are two hit confirmation requests. Urgent and Routine. Urgent requires a confirmation, by the entering agency, in 10 minutes. Routine requires a hit confirmation within an hour. If you don't get a hit with in 10 minutes you send another urgent hit comfirmation. If you still do not get a hit confirmation then a third one will be sent along with a nasty message sent to GCIC / NCIC for non-compliance.

[PtlCop]

Thecase they probably got you on is Ill. V Caballes which basically says according to my information that the drug scan is okay as long as it's conducted during the normal course of a legal stop. If you have RAS or consent you can prolong the stop to wait for the dog.

As for the case law pertaining to the extended duration of the stop due to K9 being lost I can not find it. I recently went to a Search and Seizure Seminar and recall I believe it was our ASA stating a recent case (like within a few weeks) where the stop was over however the K9 got lost on his way to the stop.

It's my understanding that you need to be preppered to defend this action and your account better match up to the K9's account as to him getting lost.

They (the courts) have said that the scan needs to be done prior to the stop being over and you can not legally extend the stop for this. My stops range from anywhere from 15-40 minutes depending...so I dont think you could call my bluff using averages as there really isnt an average traffic stop.

I would not use the case I'm thinking of to say it's okay to prolong the stop. However if the dog gets lost or something of that sort it MIGHT prevent the case from being tossed. At the end of the day the court isnt likely to buy into this arguement on a regular basis.

And obviously when stuff does get to court it's up in the air. We have a judge who has openly stated (in open court) that she does not believe in consent searches and tosses everyone out.

That was the issue. My stops would sometimes be over in 3 minutes (if i just gave a verbal warning) or 45 minutes if it was an arrest/consent to search, etc. The courts cared NOTHING about those. They took each stop, took the time on the stop, added them together then took the average right down from it.

Sure, the 45 minute stop as compared to the 3 minute stop gave me an average stop time of 24 minutes for those stops, but the average at the end of the day ended up being about 9 minutes.


As to the judge, every single one of my cases that she overturned because she doesn't believe in consent searches would be appealed to a higher court. It's not her job to input her personal opinion into the case, it's her job to apply the law as written or as previously ruled. I took 240 lbs of Marijuana out of a Semi on a consent search one night, found a one hitter in the cab and right after he said "ok, i don't want you searching anymore," at which point I had the probable cause to continue and located a false wall and found the drugs. I'll be damned if that judge had thrown the case because the driver consented and some judge doesn't "believe" in consent searches.

That'd drive me insane.

[westside popo]

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*

Try the following:
ARIZONA V. EVANS
United States v. Leon
United States v. Hensley
Use these to help you find specific cases for your state.