NEW Welcome Ad

Collapse

Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"In presence" defined

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

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

  • "In presence" defined

    This is something I've been curious about but haven't really run into it enough at my job enough to ask a supervisor yet. I figured I'd run it by here first to see what everyone has to say on the matter.

    For misd. that are only arrestable in my presence how exactly is it determined what "in presence" means. Obviously seeing the crime would satisfy that requirement but how far can it be stretched?

    We went over this in the Academy but didn't go into much detail

    Thanks for the help in advance!

  • #2
    Originally posted by tms1989 View Post
    This is something I've been curious about but haven't really run into it enough at my job enough to ask a supervisor yet. I figured I'd run it by here first to see what everyone has to say on the matter.

    For misd. that are only arrestable in my presence how exactly is it determined what "in presence" means. Obviously seeing the crime would satisfy that requirement but how far can it be stretched?

    We went over this in the Academy but didn't go into much detail

    Thanks for the help in advance!
    Ummm..... yea. Don't make this harder than it is. Use your common sense and go with that. I'm assuming since you've been hired, you have a basic concept of common sense. Time to utilize it.

    : )

    If you're still shaky on what it means, ask your supervisor...not strangers on the internet.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tms1989 View Post
      This is something I've been curious about but haven't really run into it enough at my job enough to ask a supervisor yet. I figured I'd run it by here first to see what everyone has to say on the matter.

      For misd. that are only arrestable in my presence how exactly is it determined what "in presence" means. Obviously seeing the crime would satisfy that requirement but how far can it be stretched?

      We went over this in the Academy but didn't go into much detail

      Thanks for the help in advance!
      There is no stretching involved. In presence equates to you saw it happen. And as Michigan already so eloquently noted, ask your supervisors if you have a legal interpretation question for it is they who will jam you up if you step outside the bounds of reasonableness.
      Originally posted by SSD
      It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
      Originally posted by Iowa #1603
      And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

      Comment


      • #4
        If you can see "it" it is in your prescence.

        Comment


        • #5
          Pretty much all the crimes that need to occur in your presence in order to make a warrantless arrest are the low level no-brainers (trespassing, disorderly person, MIP, etc). Well, at least here in the mitten that is.

          Comment


          • #6
            I suspect it will vary based on each state's court interpretation. For California:

            "In the Presence," Defined: "In the presence" is commonly interpreted to refer to having personal knowledge that the offense in question has been committed, made known to the officer through any of the officer's five senses. (See People v. Burgess (1947) 79 Cal.App.2nd 174, 176.)

            Unfortunately. I cannot find a link to that case that explains it further.
            Going too far is half the pleasure of not getting anywhere

            Comment


            • #7
              In my state, it means that you observed the violation.

              Comment


              • #8
                I was patrolling in a residential area behind another vehicle when I saw, out of the corner of my eye, a subject running from the left side of the roadway and into a residence. I was looking at the other side of the road at the time when that happened, and then I saw the driver of the vehicle I was behind a few car lengths back, pull over and frantically flag me down. He pointed at damage to the side of his car that he claimed was from something thrown by the subject who had ran into his residence. Meh wanted to file charges so I confronted the subject. He told me that other than not noticing me, he threw the rock because the subjects in the vehicle had done something to him in the past. Since it was a misdemeanor in my presence, I arrested him for the criminal mischief instead of obtaining a warrant first.

                So, this incident occurred in my presence even though I didn't realize it had occurred. I just ran into this guy a few weeks ago and thought it was funny I would remember the case after almost 20 years. He told me he was convicted of the offense and that he didn't remember his attorney ever bringing up that I never saw him throwing the rock.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ftttu View Post
                  I was patrolling in a residential area behind another vehicle when I saw, out of the corner of my eye, a subject running from the left side of the roadway and into a residence. I was looking at the other side of the road at the time when that happened, and then I saw the driver of the vehicle I was behind a few car lengths back, pull over and frantically flag me down. He pointed at damage to the side of his car that he claimed was from something thrown by the subject who had ran into his residence. Meh wanted to file charges so I confronted the subject. He told me that other than not noticing me, he threw the rock because the subjects in the vehicle had done something to him in the past. Since it was a misdemeanor in my presence, I arrested him for the criminal mischief instead of obtaining a warrant first.

                  So, this incident occurred in my presence even though I didn't realize it had occurred. I just ran into this guy a few weeks ago and thought it was funny I would remember the case after almost 20 years. He told me he was convicted of the offense and that he didn't remember his attorney ever bringing up that I never saw him throwing the rock.
                  Thank you, that was the type of example I was getting at with my question

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Usually presence is close proximity in which you recognized during or after the fact that a crime had been committed. For instance, you hear gunshots around the corner and you pull up and see one guy standing there popping off rounds into the sky (city ordinance violation here). It was in your presence. Or for instance you smell the odor of marijuana, we were actually trained that it gives you probable cause for an arrest (which actually makes sense if you actually use probable cause in the right terms) and also for a search; then once you find out that only one person had possession of it you could unarrest the rest of the people who you had under arrest for it. Touch... someone pushes you in the back and you turn around to see only one person standing there. You didn't see, hear, or smell them, but you felt them. We don't use taste for any of these, and don't use it to verify dope like they do in the movies lol.

                    Comment

                    MR300x250 Tablet

                    Collapse

                    What's Going On

                    Collapse

                    There are currently 38057 users online. 188 members and 37869 guests.

                    Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                    Welcome Ad

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X