ARREST

ARREST

A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the
power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the
taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal
authority, especially, in response to a criminal
charge.
The purpose of an arrest is to bring the
arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the
administration of the law. An arrest serves the
function of notifying the community that an
individual has been accused of a crime and also
may admonish and deter the arrested individual
from committing other crimes. Arrests can be
made on both criminal charges and civil
charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure
that is not looked upon with favor by the courts.
The federal Constitution imposes limits on both
civil and criminal arrests.
An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or
putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that
indicates an intention to take the arrestee into
custody and that subjects the arrestee to the
actual control and will of the person making the
arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be
arrested. There is no arrest where there is no
restraint, and the restraint must be under real or
pretended legal authority. However, the detention
of a person need not be accompanied by
formal words of arrest or a station house booking
to constitute an arrest.
The test used to determine whether an arrest
took place in a particular case is objective, and it
turns on whether a reasonable person under
these circumstances would believe he or she was
restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is
one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly
apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of
the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined
in light of a defendant’s subjective
knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the
police is also normally irrelevant to a court’s
determination whether an arrest occurred,
unless the officer makes that intent known.
Thus, a defendant’s presence at a police station
by consent does not become an arrest solely by
virtue of an officer’s subjective view that the
defendant is not free to leave, absent an act indicating
an intention to take the defendant into
custody.
An arrest constitutes a seizure under the
FOURTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution,
and thus the procedures by which a person is
arrested must comply with the protections guaranteed
by the Fourth Amendment or the arrest
will be invalidated and any evidence seized during
the arrest or confessions made after the
arrest will typically be suppressed. The U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled that arrests made
without a valid arrest warrant based on PROBABLE
CAUSE are presumptively invalid under the
Fourth Amendment. Similarly, arrests made
pursuant to a warrant that is later ruled defective
may also be declared invalid, unless the officer in
procuring the warrant and making the arrest
acted in GOOD FAITH.
However, warrantless arrests do pass constitutional
muster under some circumstances. The
Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless arrests
can be made when the circumstances make it
reasonable to do so. For example, no warrant is
required for a felony arrest in a public place,
even if the arresting officer had ample time to
procure a warrant, so long as the officer possessed
probable cause that the suspect committed
the crime. Felony arrests in places not open to the public generally do require a warrant, unless
the officer is in HOT PURSUIT of a fleeing felon.
Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642,
18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967). The Fourth Amendment
also allows warrantless arrests for misdemeanors
committed in an officer’s presence.
The exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s
warrant requirement are based on the court’s
reluctance to unduly impede the job of law
enforcement officials. Courts attempt to strike a
balance between the practical realities of daily
police work and the privacy and freedom interests
of the public. Always requiring police officers
to take the time to obtain an arrest warrant
could result in the destruction of evidence, the
disappearance of suspects, or both.
When an officer does seek an arrest warrant,
the officer must present evidence to a neutral
judge or magistrate sufficient to establish probable
cause that a crime has been committed. The
Supreme Court has said that probable cause
exists when the facts within an officer’s knowledge
provide a reasonably trustworthy basis for
a person of reasonable caution to believe that an
offense has been committed or is about to be
committed. Courts will deny requests when the
warrant fails to describe in particularized detail
the person to be arrested. The evidence upon
which a warrant is based need not be ultimately
admissible at trial, but it cannot be based on
knowingly or intentionally false statements, or
statements made in reckless disregard of the
truth. However, inaccuracies found in a warrant
due to ordinary NEGLIGENCE will not typically
jeopardize a warrant’s validity.
Police officers need no justification to stop
someone on a public street and ask questions,
and individuals are completely entitled to refuse
to answer any such questions and go about their
business. However, the Fourth Amendment prohibits
police officers from detaining pedestrians
and conducting any kind of search of their clothing
without first possessing a reasonable and
articulable suspicion that the pedestrians are
engaged in criminal activity. TERRY V. OHIO, 392
U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 21 L. Ed. 889 (1968). Police may not even compel a pedestrian to produce
identification without first meeting this standard.
Similarly, police may not stop motorists without
first having a reasonable and articulable suspicion
that the driver has violated a traffic law. If a police
officer has satisfied this standard in stopping a
motorist, the officer may conduct a search of the
vehicle’s interior, including the glove compartment,
but not the trunk, unless the officer has
probable cause to believe that it contains contraband
or the instruments for criminal activity.
Investigatory stops or detentions must be
limited and temporary, lasting no longer than
necessary to carry out the purpose of the stop or
detention. An investigatory stop that lasts too
long turns into a de facto arrest that must comply
with the warrant requirements of the Fourth
Amendment. But no bright line exists for determining
when an investigatory stop becomes a de
facto arrest, as courts are reluctant to hamstring
the flexibility and discretion of police officers by
placing artificial time limitations on the fluid
and dynamic nature of their investigations.
Rather, the test is whether the detention is temporary
and whether the police acted with reasonable
dispatch to quickly confirm or dispel
the suspicions that initially induced the investigative
detention.
Not all arrests are made by members of law
enforcement. Many jurisdictions permit private
citizens to make arrests. Popularly known as citizen’s
arrests, the circumstances under which private
citizens may place each other under arrest
are normally very limited. All jurisdictions that
authorize citizen’s arrests prohibit citizens from
making arrests for unlawful acts committed outside
their presence. Most jurisdictions that
authorize citizen’s arrests also allow citizens to
make arrests only for serious crimes, such as
felonies and gross misdemeanors, and then only
when the arresting citizen has probable cause to
believe the arrestee committed the serious crime.
Witnessing the crime in person will normally
establish probable cause for making an arrest.
Both private citizens and law enforcement
officers may be held liable for the TORT of false
arrest in civil court. An action for false arrest
requires proof that the process used for the
arrest was void on its face. In other words, one
who confines another, while purporting to act
by authority of law which does not in fact exist,
makes a false arrest and may be required to pay
money damages to the victim. To make out a
claim for false arrest, the plaintiff must show
that the charges on which he or she was arrested
ultimately lacked justification. That is, the plaintiff
in a false arrest action must show that the
arrest was made without probable cause and for
an improper purpose.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Accusation; Charge; Civil Procedure; Contraband; Criminal
Action; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; De Facto; Evidence;
Felony; Fourth Amendment; Hot Pursuit; Liability;
Probable Cause; Seizure; Tort Law.