• 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???

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,134
Location
White Oak Plantation
...

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.
Reasoned and reasonable discussion is not possible when one half of the participants relies upon emphatic assertion, and the other half cites statute.

You have posted nine times in this thread and relied upon emphatic assertion in eight of your posts. The one post, number 27, UNITED STATES v. DOUGLASS, to support you assertions is clearly not relevant to the question in the op.

If I have missed a WI statute that states/confirms your assertion, I will be further educated, until then I can only rely upon WI statutes as guidance.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,249
Location
here nc
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.
so you truly believe 'every state MUST...COMPLY..." really, you honestly believe that?

guess when all else fails the fall back to to resort to generalized condescending rhetoric, but tell me since you unequivocally stated every state must...comply doesn't it put you response in the generalized bucket of 'simple'?
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
130
Location
PA
so you truly believe 'every state MUST...COMPLY..." really, you honestly believe that?

guess when all else fails the fall back to to resort to generalized condescending rhetoric, but tell me since you unequivocally stated every state must...comply doesn't it put you response in the generalized bucket of 'simple'?
So as to keep the language simple for you also, Yes, every State must comply with federal constitutional law. I not only believe that, I know that.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,249
Location
here nc
So as to keep the language simple for you also, Yes, every State must comply with federal constitutional law. I not only believe that, I know that.
you know cocked...if every state, as you state is complying with federal constitutional law, pray tell why are the courts slammed trying cases from citizens seeking adjudication from their constitutional violation interactions with the nice LEs ~ eh?

oh, by the way i do hope your condescending post this evening towards me helped to boast your ego on this very public forum, it did, did it not... cocked??
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,134
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
Two state definitions were provided (WI and MO) that define what a arrest is and when a arrest occurs...the definition of arrest was important until now.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,249
Location
here nc
Am I being detained? Am I free to go?

https://www.cji.edu/site/assets/files/1921/am-i-being-detained-am-i-free-to-go.pdf

A police officer's perspective.

Worth a read....
kinda, sorta wish i didn't pursue the document...

I mean really...a citizen would acknowledge they abrogate their 4th by signing this:

article quote:These Officers are authorized by me to take from my premises/auto any letters, papers, materials, or other property, which they may desire. unquote.

then the Officer's essay says a sentence later after discussing video/recording the citizen giving permission, quote: it is important to ensure you inform the defendant he or she is not required to give the consent and he or she can retract consent at any time! unquote.

interestingly the written request doesn't have a clause stating the citizen can change their mind and the nice search must stop!

soon it will be 'ghee'...

quite interesting what this 22-year 'Sgt' believes as the blue gospel!
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,249
Location
here nc
So as to keep the language simple for you also, Yes, every State must comply with federal constitutional law. I not only believe that, I know that.
https://www.cji.edu/site/assets/file...free-to-go.pdf

quote: The website YouTube is full of videos entitled “Am I being Detained, Am I Free to Go”. The most upsetting thing for me when I watch some of these videos is the fact that the officers were not prepared to answer the simple question “Am I being detained?” The officers I’ve seen in the videos generally lose their temper and ultimately end up making a simple contact turn into a cluster, often violating the citizens’ rights. unquote.

must comply...lol and you know it as blue gospel!!
 

cocked&locked

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
130
Location
PA
https://www.cji.edu/site/assets/file...free-to-go.pdf

quote: The website YouTube is full of videos entitled “Am I being Detained, Am I Free to Go”. The most upsetting thing for me when I watch some of these videos is the fact that the officers were not prepared to answer the simple question “Am I being detained?” The officers I’ve seen in the videos generally lose their temper and ultimately end up making a simple contact turn into a cluster, often violating the citizens’ rights. unquote.

must comply...lol and you know it as blue gospel!!
Yep
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,134
Location
White Oak Plantation
As a law enforcementofficer, you will frequently need to ask yourself if you are actually detaining an individual or if itis merely a consensual encounter.
:eek:

Unfortunately the mindset remains and is perpetuated with these missives.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,911
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
+1

Absolutely astounding! Turn your back and walk away.

Then there is the current kerfuffle of a cop charging (Indiana) ‘provocation’ for being given the middle-finger after cutting the evil perpetrator off in traffic.

I heard an anecdote of the legal definition of provocation, I’ll have to see if I can find it...yep. It is a crime to make me say that I’m gonna beat yur azz.
Indiana Code 35-42-2-3. Provocation
[ ... ]
Sec. 3. A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally engages in conduct that is likely to provoke a reasonable person to commit battery commits provocation, a Class C infraction. As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.32; P.L.158-2013, SEC.425.
Solus (spit) better keep his distance from me in Indiana!
The statute could be found unconstitutional. The bird is not fighting words, it's free speech. And, the Supreme Court has ruled that restrictions on content-based speech are unconstitutional. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)

A one finger salute could be viewed as a sign of endearment.
 
Top