Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh please.. It isnt until an initial arraignment trial that it is determined if there is "reasonable suspicion" to hold you. If you go to the arraignment and the judge determines there isnt probable cause or reasonable suspicion to hold you, you have no legal recourse to sue the cop for false arrest because you were not arrested, you were being legally detained.
Arraignment is a separate procedure from probable cause determination. Just another thing you didn't know. And you certainly do have the right to sue for being illegally detained. Your case would be strongest if the police had been unable to articulate any particularized justification for detention -- as would be the case in just the sort of detentions you appear to contemplate.
I look forward to the next shovelful of dirt by which you dig yourself into an even deeper hole...
Question: Whats the odds of two posters, coming up with the EXACT same bs?
Answer: Very good if they are liberals, because they repeate the same talking points read from the same liberal sites as if they were original thoughts..
You didn't exactly read my version, did you.
You can call me late for dinner, but never call me a liberal.
Here it is again...
First step to perfect state police.
First they came for the illegals. I was yelling, "I'm no illegal", so I did not complain.
Next they came for the illegal homosexuals. I was not homosexual, so I did not complain.
Next they came for illegal alien me. There was nobody left to complain. So they finally took me back to Mexico.
A bit abbreviated, but folks, if the gov't can take one illegal alien, they will take all.
You will thank them later.
From the scene of a crime, not just walk down the street, look at you, and then put you in the squad car to go downtown.
There is a difference, you know that right?
Yes, I know the difference.. They take you from the scene and THEN get a warrant.. or they dont take you from the scene and take you to an arraignment hearing..
Arraignment is a separate procedure from probable cause determination. Just another thing you didn't know. And you certainly do have the right to sue for being illegally detained. Your case would be strongest if the police had been unable to articulate any particularized justification for detention -- as would be the case in just the sort of detentions you appear to contemplate.
I look forward to the next shovelful of dirt by which you dig yourself into an even deeper hole...
The concept of ''probable cause'' is central to the meaning of the warrant clause. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor the federal statutory provisions relevant to the area define ''probable cause;'' the definition is entirely a judicial construct. An applicant for a warrant must present to the magistrate facts sufficient to enable the officer himself to make a determination of probable cause.
Probable cause is not determined by the courts until after the arraignment.. If you want to now argue that the police have even MORE time to detain you without evidence, then I wont argue, but you are the one arguing its less..
Yes, I know the difference.. They take you from the scene and THEN get a warrant.. or they dont take you from the scene and take you to an arraignment hearing..
Thats right, but what the new law in AZ does, is allows you to detain anyone, simply because they "look" like they are illegal.
Thats the difference. You don't need a crime scene to detain them, you can detain them, just because.
It does no such thing. It clearly states that at least reasonbale suspicion must be present for any stop to be initiated at all. This directly controverts your claim.
Thats right, but what the new law in AZ does, is allows you to detain anyone, simply because they "look" like they are illegal.
Thats the difference. You don't need a crime scene to detain them, you can detain them, just because.
See where the problem is?
I'm not arguing for/against the AZ law, I think its a ridiculous law, I am simply pointing out that the police departments can already detain one for 48 hours.
If you want to take sags point of view that suspicion is needed then fine, suspicion that an individual might be an illegal is justifiable reason because being an illegal alien is indeed illegal, and the suspicion alone is justifiable reason for a 48 hour detainment.
It does no such thing. It clearly states that at least reasonbale suspicion must be present for any stop to be initiated at all. This directly controverts your claim.
A cop need probable cause to make an arrest, they do not need one to detain you. (the cop verified he had 24 hours to do so)
The link verified this, they received probable cause to stop, and then detain an individual, and then he went to receive a warrant to make the arrest. he has 48 HOURS to receive the warrant to justify a detainment longer than the 24 hour limit set by his district. (48 hours by Supreme Court)
There is a HUGE difference between detainment, and an arrest, and a HUGE difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. you can be detained on both reasonable suspicion and probable cause, but you cant be arrested on both..
Suppose you are at work and you find your whole family including your children,had a home invasion and all were found, torchered and killed by a "suspected illegal" who was identified by a witness and is an "alledged illegal" was identified by the vehicle and clothing he is wearing,never mind the car was stolen and he had no insurance.
If I have Probable Cause to believe a specific person has committed a crime, I can arrest that person. At that point, I can conduct a complete search of their person for weapons, evidence, and contraband, as well as their vehcile if they are or have been near it recently. I can remove them from the scene and hold them (in jail) for 24 hours or until I get a warrant issued for the charges.
Probable cause is not determined by the courts until after the arraignment.. If you want to now argue that the police have even MORE time to detain you without evidence, then I wont argue, but you are the one arguing its less..
You are at a complete loss. Determination and arraignment are two different processes, although in some states they are combined for administrative convenience. It is meanwhile the determination process that is governed by Gerstein and McLaughlin. Formal arraignment may be delayed, but determination must occur within 48 hours.
In any case, none of this is the evidence you need to support your claim. What you need are citations confirming that persons may be legally detained for up to 48 hours on the basis of no sort of suspicion at all. That is what you ridiculously claimed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
