• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is being detained under arrest or in custody???

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1384662.html

The above is a link to the case. I encourage everyone to read it for themselves so they can fully understand what I am about to say; and the mental midgets (Nightmare & Walking Wolf) that I am saddled with today.

To the Law Firm of M&M’s 1&2:

(1) Fortunately for me and my reputation (and unfortunately for your reputation), many people on on this forum already know that the law only recognizes 3 types of police encounters; and a ‘consensual detainment’ is not one of them, you fools.
(2) If you had bothered to read the case, or had more than a 3rd grade reading comprehension, you would understand that the holding of the case was that the encounter before Douglass drove off was ruled a ‘voluntary encounter’, not your mythical ‘consensual detainment’.

Did you two M&M’s also go to Mr. Charlatan’s law school? Or did you learn how to misrepresent cases all on your own? Oh, that’s right, you did not go to law school! You cannot read past the 3rd grade!

So, since you have a comprehension problem, let me make things simple for you. Let me put things in terms your simple minds can understand. You have just been cocked without any lubricant. LOL. And you can’t make this sh*t up!
I don't have a problem, you do. If a person is detained(not free to go) and are not told they are detained, and they do not question it is consensual. In the case clearly the officers did not intend for the suspect to be free to leave, to the point of drawing their guns. HE WAS DETAINED, but the courts ruled that the stop was consensual. Stop trying to act like you are a god on a forum, you are not. People with common sense know that if they are questioned by police they may not be free to go, yet many will not voice their concerns. Many times they will be right, they are not free to go, SO THEY ARE DETAINED.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
130
Location
PA
I don't have a problem, you do. If a person is detained(not free to go) and are not told they are detained, and they do not question it is consensual. In the case clearly the officers did not intend for the suspect to be free to leave, to the point of drawing their guns. HE WAS DETAINED, but the courts ruled that the stop was consensual. Stop trying to act like you are a god on a forum, you are not. People with common sense know that if they are questioned by police they may not be free to go, yet many will not voice their concerns. Many times they will be right, they are not free to go, SO THEY ARE DETAINED.
I don't care what you think.! The court ruled it a voluntary encounter. There is no such thing as a 'consensual detainment'. You misrepresented the holding of the case! You are now trying to engage in some type of bait and switch with your argument after I have exposed you! And finally, you have been cocked without any lubricant. LOL

So, how did it feel? Did you have a cigarette?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,128
Location
White Oak Plantation
Incorrect! An 'arrest' is a process by which a person is brought before a court (a summons is another one). A 'detainment' does not necessarily result in a person being brought before a court (such as with a Terry or motor vehicle stop).

That is just one major difference between an 'arrest' and 'detainment'. There are others.
Perhaps in your state. In Missouri (RSMo 544.180. Arrest.), and as it seems to be in Wisconsin based on the language of the provided statute/rulings in the op, a arrest is defined as (conducted/effected) when a citizen submits to the authority of the LEO. Whether or not the LEO cuffs a citizen does not seem to be a required element (listed in the statute language) of a arrest in MO or WI.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
130
Location
PA
Perhaps in your state. In Missouri (RSMo 544.180. Arrest.), and as it seems to be in Wisconsin based on the language of the provided statute/rulings in the op, a arrest is defined as (conducted/effected) when a citizen submits to the authority of the LEO. Whether or not the LEO cuffs a citizen does not seem to be a required element (listed in the statute language) of a arrest in MO or WI.
Okay. Let's do this step by step for all the mental midgets out there.

An 'arrest' is a process to bring an individual before a court.

A person is deemed 'arrested' when his person is seized, usually by an LEO.

But the process of arrest is not complete until the person is actually brought before the court.

The 'authority' of the LEO during the arrest process is to seize and bring the person before the court at the first available opportunity. It is not to adjudicate, punish or confine an individual.

If an LEO does not bring the individual before the court at the first available opportunity then the arrest becomes unlawful.

When the arrestee appears before the court, the process of 'arrest' is concluded and the LEO loses all authority over the arrestee.

Is that simple enough for you?

Many laymen think of an 'arrest' as simply the process of seizing the person. But an 'arrest' is more than that.

Countless cases have centered around the 'seizing' of a person during an arrest. But just as many cases have centered around the issues of 'getting the person to court' in the arrest process. Most laymen are not as familiar with those cases or issues.

I will end by saying that for the typical layman the discussion on a particular issue seems to end with the definition of a term. For a professional, the definition is just the beginning of the discussion. That is the difference between a professional and a layman.
 
Last edited:
B

Bikenut

Guest
Here is my "layman's" understanding of how it works with police.

Consensual interaction = having a conversation that can be terminated at any time simply by stating a desire to not talk to the officer or by walking away regardless of the topic of conversation.

Detained = not being able to walk away until the officer says you can.

The difference between "consensual" and "detained" can be determined during the incident simply by asking the officer(s) "Am I being detained?". If the answer is yes then you cannot leave until the officer says you can. If the answer is no then it is up to you to either walk away or continue the conversation possibly talking yourself into not only being detained but also being..........

Arrested = not able to walk away at all because of being charged with a violation of a law and taken into custody (cuffed, stuffed, and jailed) by the officer(s) to allow the legal system to either punish or release.

Custody = still under arrest and being held/restricted in some way (jailed/out on bond) by the legal system until the next step in the legal process....

Arraignment or trial = confirmation of innocence (released) or guilt (sentenced).

Sentenced = punished in some way (fines and/or required activities and/or incarceration) for violating a law.

In my layman's simplistic understanding the above pretty much holds true throughout the country and I would much appreciate any and all corrections to that understanding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,234
Location
here nc
Here is my "layman's" understanding of how it works with police.

Consensual interaction = having a conversation that can be terminated at any time simply by stating a desire to not talk to the officer or by walking away regardless of the topic of conversation.

Detained = not being able to walk away until the officer says you can.

The difference between "consensual" and "detained" can be determined during the incident simply by asking the officer(s) "Am I being detained?". If the answer is yes then you cannot leave until the officer says you can. If the answer is no then it is up to you to either walk away or continue the conversation possibly talking yourself into not only being detained but also being..........

Arrested = not able to walk away at all because of being charged with a violation of a law and taken into custody (cuffed, stuffed, and jailed) by the officer(s) to allow the legal system to either punish or release.

Custody = still under arrest and being held/restricted in some way (jailed/out on bond) by the legal system until the next step in the legal process....

Arraignment or trial = confirmation of innocence (released) or guilt (sentenced).

Sentenced = punished in some way (fines and/or required activities and/or incarceration) for violating a law.

In my layman's simplistic understanding the above pretty much holds true throughout the country and I would much appreciate any and all corrections to that understanding.
the really sad part, there are nice LEs who are supposed to know the law as outlined by C&L’s post but completely ignore those premises, either by their egos believing they are superiour to the citizen or are bullies, knowing the majority of this country’s citizens believe bikenut’s perceptions of these words definitions, and wish to pursue their power trip!

one final concept, i engaged in a huge leap of faith in that the nice LEs across this country, currently in our communities, are properly educated in C&L’s definitions!

finally, i would hate to believe the lack of LE education on these subjects was intended by community leaders solely to increase the community's profit center by forcing citizens “into the system.”

added...forgive my oversight bikenut, i meant to expess my sincere appreciation on your taking time to post those definitions so succinctly ~ thanks!
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Okay. Let's do this step by step for all the mental midgets out there.

An 'arrest' is a process to bring an individual before a court.

A person is deemed 'arrested' when his person is seized, usually by an LEO.

But the process of arrest is not complete until the person is actually brought before the court.

The 'authority' of the LEO during the arrest process is to seize and bring the person before the court at the first available opportunity. It is not to adjudicate, punish or confine an individual.

If an LEO does not bring the individual before the court at the first available opportunity then the arrest becomes unlawful.

When the arrestee appears before the court, the process of 'arrest' is concluded and the LEO loses all authority over the arrestee.

Is that simple enough for you?

Many laymen think of an 'arrest' as simply the process of seizing the person. But an 'arrest' is more than that.

Countless cases have centered around the 'seizing' of a person during an arrest. But just as many cases have centered around the issues of 'getting the person to court' in the arrest process. Most laymen are not as familiar with those cases or issues.

I will end by saying that for the typical layman the discussion on a particular issue seems to end with the definition of a term. For a professional, the definition is just the beginning of the discussion. That is the difference between a professional and a layman.
OK time to fess up, just what are your credentials? So far you have provided NO, NONE, NADA statutes to back up your ignorance of case law. A person is detained if they are not free to go, the police do not have to inform the detained they are not free to go. Courts have hundreds of times ruled that as consensual stop. If they were not detained they would not use force when the suspect does try to walk away.

Most ordinary citizens feel they are compelled when they are questioned, few assert their rights. The courts consider that consensual unless one does assert their right or attempt to leave.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
130
Location
PA
Arrest

the really sad part, there are nice LEs who are supposed to know the law as outlined by C&L’s post but completely ignore those premises, either by their egos believing they are superiour to the citizen or are bullies, knowing the majority of this country’s citizens believe bikenut’s perceptions of these words definitions, and wish to pursue their power trip!

one final concept, i engaged in a huge leap of faith in that the nice LEs across this country, currently in our communities, are properly educated in C&L’s definitions!

finally, i would hate to believe the lack of LE education on these subjects was intended by community leaders solely to increase the community's profit center by forcing citizens “into the system.”

added...forgive my oversight bikenut, i meant to expess my sincere appreciation on your taking time to post those definitions so succinctly ~ thanks!
The subject of ‘arrest’ is one that is near and dear to my heart. Every year dozens of people (with a high percentage in the black community) lose their lives because they do not understand the process. In my experience, an overwhelming majority of people did not know that the process involved more than the seizure of the person. For those reasons I spend time lecturing to young black boys and men about ‘arrest’ and how to survive the process. You have touched on some of the issues concerning the LEO’s. I want to take a minute to touch upon the process from the perspective of the arrested.

(1) When you are informed that you are under arrest, YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU MUST SUBMIT PEACEFULLY TO THE ARREST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERE IS NO PROCESS IN THE LAW FOR CHALLENGING AN ARREST BEFORE YOU GET IN FRONT OF A JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!
You are under arrest-- often the LEO does not even have discretion in whether to arrest. He could be operating under a warrant or a law which mandates an arrest in certain circumstances.

You must submit peacefully to the arrest--once you are under arrest the LEO is authorized to use whatever force is necessary, including taking your life, to effectuate the arrest, regardless of the severity of the alleged crime! Resisting the arrest at that point is useless and will only result in physical injury to your person (which some LEO’s are more than happy to inflict). If the LEO is not capable of seizing you on his own then he is going to call a partner for help. If both of them cannot do it they are going to call the entire dept. If the entire dept. cannot subdue you they are going to call neighboring departments and the state police and the FBI, and the military, if necessary. They can and will spend whatever amounts of money are necessary to effectuate your arrest. So unless you are capable of resisting the full weight of the United States local, state and federal gov’t, you must submit!

There is no process in the law for challenging an arrest before getting in front of a judge-- it does not matter who you are, who you know or what your education or income levels are, the first opportunity to challenge an unlawful arrest does not occur until you are in front of a judge! You cannot challenge the arrest with the LEO in the field. He does not have the authority to adjudicate whether the arrest is lawful or not. So if you believe your arrest is unlawful, you should be doing everything possible to get in front of the judge as quickly as possible. That means not resisting!

ALWAYS REMEMBER: AN ARREST SHOULD BE A WELCOMED PROCESS, NOT SOMETHING TO BE RESISTED!!!!!

It may sound crazy, but if you step back and analyze the situation then you realize it is true.

If you are being arrested then that means that there is a dispute of some sort involving you. The ‘arrest’ is to bring you before a neutral arbitrator to resolve the dispute; something you should probably welcome since the alternative is to have some dumb-ass highly prejudiced LEO out in the field resolve the dispute for you!

That is the Reader’s Digest version of my talk on the subject of arrest.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
130
Location
PA
OK time to fess up, just what are your credentials? So far you have provided NO, NONE, NADA statutes to back up your ignorance of case law. A person is detained if they are not free to go, the police do not have to inform the detained they are not free to go. Courts have hundreds of times ruled that as consensual stop. If they were not detained they would not use force when the suspect does try to walk away.

Most ordinary citizens feel they are compelled when they are questioned, few assert their rights. The courts consider that consensual unless one does assert their right or attempt to leave.
Now let's deal with the riff-raff.

What difference does it make to you what my credentials are since you have no respect for credentials. I will tell you that my credentials authorize me to practice law in multiple states and I have been litigating both civil and criminal cases before State and Federal courts for over 27 yrs. What are your credentials that authorize you to spew the nonsense that you do?

No court has ever used the terms 'detainment' and 'consensual' together and you don't have to be a lawyer to know that! The crap you spew is pure nonsense!!!!!!! We are a people that value liberty second only to life itself. A 'detainment' is a deprivation of liberty and so EVERY DETAINMENT IS PRESUMED TO BE NONCONSENSUAL IN THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'CONSENSUAL DETAINMENT' IN THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!

Furthermore, the courts have spoken countless times about the differences between a 'voluntary encounter' and a 'detainment'. One is consensual and the other (detainment) is not!!!!!!! That is another reason why what you spew is pure nonsense!!!!!!!!!! And many on this forum, who are not lawyers, know it is pure bullish*t!!!!!!!!!

Do yourself a favor and stop spewing your legal nonsense. You are not fooling anyone but yourself!
 
Last edited:

FBrinson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
294
Location
Henrico, VA
Now let's deal with the riff-raff.

What difference does it make to you what my credentials are since you have no respect for credentials. I will tell you that my credentials authorize me to practice law in multiple states and I have been litigating both civil and criminal cases before State and Federal courts for over 27 yrs. What are your credentials that authorize you to spew the nonsense that you do?

No court has ever used the terms 'detainment' and 'consensual' together and you don't have to be a lawyer to know that! The crap you spew is pure nonsense!!!!!!! We are a people that value liberty second only to life itself. A 'detainment' is a deprivation of liberty and so EVERY DETAINMENT IS PRESUMED TO BE NONCONSENSUAL IN THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'CONSENSUAL DETAINMENT' IN THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!

Furthermore, the courts have spoken countless times about the differences between a 'voluntary encounter' and a 'detainment'. One is consensual and the other (detainment) is not!!!!!!! That is another reason why what you spew is pure nonsense!!!!!!!!!! And many on this forum, who are not lawyers, know it is pure bullish*t!!!!!!!!!

Do yourself a favor and stop spewing your legal nonsense. You are not fooling anyone but yourself!
Did law school teach you how to use extra exclamation marks? Thanks for the free legal advice, sir.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,128
Location
White Oak Plantation
Okay. Let's do this step by step for all the mental midgets out there.

An 'arrest' is a process to bring an individual before a court.

A person is deemed 'arrested' when his person is seized, usually by an LEO.

But the process of arrest is not complete until the person is actually brought before the court.

The 'authority' of the LEO during the arrest process is to seize and bring the person before the court at the first available opportunity. It is not to adjudicate, punish or confine an individual.

If an LEO does not bring the individual before the court at the first available opportunity then the arrest becomes unlawful.

When the arrestee appears before the court, the process of 'arrest' is concluded and the LEO loses all authority over the arrestee.

Is that simple enough for you?

Many laymen think of an 'arrest' as simply the process of seizing the person. But an 'arrest' is more than that.

Countless cases have centered around the 'seizing' of a person during an arrest. But just as many cases have centered around the issues of 'getting the person to court' in the arrest process. Most laymen are not as familiar with those cases or issues.

I will end by saying that for the typical layman the discussion on a particular issue seems to end with the definition of a term. For a professional, the definition is just the beginning of the discussion. That is the difference between a professional and a layman.
Missouri statutes do not state that a arrest is completed when that citizen is brought before the court. Your state may have such language. The cited statute and court cases in the op also do not appear to have such language.

Your unwarranted insult is noted.
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
130
Location
PA
Missouri statutes do not state that a arrest is completed when that citizen is brought before the court. Your state may have such language. The cited statute and court cases in the op also do not appear to have such language.

Your unwarranted insult is noted.
So when exactly do you contend an arrest begins and ends, genius?
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,697
Location
Granite State of Mind
It is missing the boat to argue about seized vs. arrested vs. detained, or comparative state definitions. The key word is "seized", and U.S. constitutional case law is the same in every state.


"A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
130
Location
PA
It is missing the boat to argue about seized vs. arrested vs. detained, or comparative state definitions. The key word is "seized", and U.S. constitutional case law is the same in every state.


"A seizure of a person, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, occurs when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
I agree that it is not very important to argue about 'comparative state definitions'. Every state has there own particular quirks regarding the arrest process. I also agree that every state must, at a minimum, comply with federal constitutional law regarding the arrest process.

Where I disagree with you is that the discussion about 'seized vs. arrested vs. detained' is not important. There are some major differences between being detained and being arrested and those differences can have monumental impact in a particular case. Just one example: the admissibility of evidence can depend on whether it was obtained while detained or arrested. Searches and seizures which are lawful in an arrest situation can be unlawful in a detainment situation.

Since simple seems to rule the day around here; a detainment = a seizure. An arrest = a seizure. But a detainment does not equal an arrest.

Still waiting to hear from the gentleman from White Oak Plantation. I guess when the answer is not found in a definition, or the exact wording of a statute, or some internet squib that they can just repeat, a response becomes more challenging for some. Think about your response some more. I'll wait.
 
Top