Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Case Law Help...arrest Warrants

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • Monkeybomb
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Name Taken
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • t150vsuptpr
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    Ours is similar to what L-1 wrote except we MUST provide the warrant to the person within reasonable time.

    Leave a comment:


  • L-1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mdrdep
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smurfette_76
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • fordman318
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • G-MAN
    started a topic Case Law Help...arrest Warrants

    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*

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 6245 users online. 345 members and 5900 guests.

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

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X