Escaped killer on the loose for 9 days. How's he doing it????

[911]

Wouldn't that still be an Arrest by law?

Not necessarily. Police can hold a suspect for a short amount of time while the D.A. determines the facts and makes a decision as to whether to charge or not.

Like I said, we want to get this right. If the gun owner does shoot the man, there is reasonable cause to hold until the D.A. determines if an arrest is warranted.

If it’s a cop that did the shooting, I think he gets a pass because he can say he had reasonable cause and belief that he presented a threat to society with a loaded weapon. However, as a citizen, I’m not sure if he would be charged or not and would rely on the decision made by the D.A.

 

[ohioboy]

Not necessarily. Police can hold a suspect for a short amount of time while the D.A. determines the facts and makes a decision as to whether to charge or not.

Like I said, we want to get this right. If the gun owner does shoot the man, there is reasonable cause to hold until the D.A. determines if an arrest is warranted.

What I meant was, taking a person into Custody IS an arrest, period, and requires PC, whether or not it is so characterized as such. I am aware of investigative detention within the time frame for a formal charge. If you take a person in without telling them they are under arrest, they are still under arrest, Dunaway v. New York.

He was taken in involuntarily, was not told he was under arrest, but it still was arrest per the USSC.

 

[911]

What I meant was, taking a person into Custody IS an arrest, period, and requires PC, whether or not it is so characterized as such. I am aware of investigative detention within the time frame for a formal charge. If you take a person in without telling them they are under arrest, they are still under arrest, Dunaway v. New York.

He was taken in involuntarily, was not told he was under arrest, but it still was arrest per the USSC.

I like your tenacity for wanting answers. Not too many people are interested in laws until it affects them, a family member or friend.

In PA, maybe we do things a bit different because we are still using some of the old antiquated English laws. Here, we look at "Detaining" someone and "Arresting" someone as two different charges. When we arrest an individual, it is because we intend to post charges at a later time. Under our state's Constitution, the police do the right to detain or hold a person for a reasonable amount of time as long as we can show cause. Reasonable amount of time is determined by what the pending charges are or will be.

I spoke with a Trooper just a few minutes ago and he also never ran into an instance like we are discussing and he pretty much went along with what I am referring to with how I would handle this situation. I know when other states arrest someone, they go through the booking procedure and they already know what the charge(s) will be.

Just think about this. If you have a witness to a crime, the police Officer can "hold" that person until he takes their statement. Because he is holding him doesn't mean he is arresting him. I hope we are talking about the same things and I am not being confused about the process.

 

[ohioboy]

In PA, maybe we do things a bit different because we are still using some of the old antiquated English laws. Here, we look at "Detaining" someone and "Arresting" someone as two different charges. When we arrest an individual, it is because we intend to post charges at a later time.

I understand various legal labels, but my basis was the Dunaway case and the SC's 4th Amendment label/ meaning of what is an Arrest, which of course is controlling.

Syllabus:


(c) The treatment of petitioner, whether or not technically characterized as an arrest, was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest, and must be supported by probable cause. Detention for custodial interrogation -- regardless of its label -- intrudes so severely on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment as necessarily to trigger the traditional safeguards against illegal arrest. Cf. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721; Brown v. Illinois, supra. Pp. 442 U. S. 214-216.

Under our state's Constitution, the police do the right to detain or hold a person for a reasonable amount of time as long as we can show cause. Reasonable amount of time is determined by what the pending charges are or will be.

Sure, all states have a time frame within to hold an Arraignment or Probable Cause hearing when a person is held in custody after arrest, the SC permits this, but holding still requires PC per Dunaway.

Just think about this. If you have a witness to a crime, the police Officer can "hold" that person until he takes their statement. Because he is holding him doesn't mean he is arresting him. I hope we are talking about the same things and I am not being confused about the process.

Sure, on scene detention as you describe does not require PC, as there is no intent to charge a crime. In Ohio generally under our S&I law, one must only provide their name, etc. under penalty of law if a Felony was witnessed. That is not an arrest.

Section 2921.29 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws