Arrest procedure?

Question

I’ve written a novel and need some info on arrest procedure. The fictional town is a college town in Western Maryland and the college has around three, four thousand people, the town proper maybe another two or three thousand. The sticks. The man is arrested for a fight in which it appears that he was trying to throw someone out a three-story window. He is caught in the act and hauled away by police.

Would he be advised his Miranda rights there and then, after he was dragged off the victim; would they cuff him right there?

Answer 1

#1 - After the arrest, the defendant would be taken away to the nearest city/county police station to be interrogated.

#2 - The defendant would be read his Miranda rights before being interrogated. If he waives Miranda, he's interrogated and goes to step 3. If he asks for a lawyer, step 3.

#3 - The defendant would be taken to a District Court Commissioner (usually at the county jail) within 24 hours of his arrest where he would be presented to the commissioner. The commissioner reads charges and notifies defendant of bail. Defendant is processed and remanded to county jail.

#4 - On the next business day (or Monday if the arrest occurred during the weekend), the defendant would have a bail review hearing before a District Court judge (usually via closed circuit TV) where the defendant and his attorney would have a chance to argue for lowered bail or be released on recognizance. The next court date would be decided. If the judge eliminates bail, defendant is released on recognizance. Otherwise, defendant stays in jail until bail is either made or disposition of the case.

Answer 2

The person should also be told the reason for the arrest, even if it appears obvious from the circumstances, although the omission of this information does not necessarily make the arrest unlawful. However a court has a discretion to exclude evidence flowing from the arrest (such as a record of interview), where it would be unfair to the suspect to use it, or where for public policy reasons the court excludes the evidence. Generally an arrest will be lawful if the officer who carries it out is acting as a result of an honest and reasonable belief in the relevant facts. The arresting party may be mistaken as to the facts, and the person later released. Provided, however, the person had an honest and reasonable belief in the relevant facts, then the officer has acted lawfully. For that reason no attempt should ever be made to resist arrest. Civil action can however be taken for damages or compensation if a wrongful arrest is made. A police officer may use as much force as is reasonably necessary to arrest the person. Unreasonable force is assault. It is up to the court to decide whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. For example, force that is likely to kill or cause grievous bodily harm has been held reasonable if the person could not be arrested in any other way [R v. Turner (1962) VR 30]. Handcuffs or a similar restraint are reasonable force where the person has physically resisted arrest or attempted to run away. It is an offence to resist or hinder a police officer in the execution of his or her duty - including the making of a lawful arrest [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 6]. The resistance to the arrest must be active. Merely lying down and refusing to co-operate is not resisting nor is running away from a police officer before a valid arrest. A person can hinder the police by passive actions that render a police action more difficult, but not impossible. A person innocent of any other offence can nevertheless be charged with resisting arrest or hindering police in the execution of their duty. The police are entitled to proceed with a charge of resist arrest or hinder even if the evidence later suggests that the original offence that the person was arrested for should not proceed. The exception to this is where the arresting person knew or suspected there was no offence being committed.

Answer 3

It is a common myth that people have to be read thier rights after every arrest, often police officers will do just to be safe, but it isnt alwasy nessecary. Two things have to occur at the same time for it to be necessary: 1. The person has to be under arrest. 2. The person has to be under interrogation or questioning while he is under arrest. If either of the above conditions is not present then miranda rights are not necessary. In the case or your situation, the perp was caught in the act, so it is fairly open and shut and no investigation would be nessecary. Also, any information the person gives the police can be used against them whether or not the were advised of that right. As long as police officers dont ask any investigative questions, then the rights dont have to be read.

Answer 4

They would cuff him for the protection of everyone involved. This is a procedure when detaining someone, even though they are not under arrest at the time. Once any witnesses or the "victim" was questioned about the circumstances, the perpetrator would be released or arrested. If arrested, he would be advised of his Miranda Rights before any questioning was done. Most of the time, any questions answered before arrest or the reading of the rights is not admissable in court.

Answer 5

Miranda would be read before he is questioned to inform him of u have a right to remain silent ect. yes he would be handcuffed for the cops protection,handcuffing does not mean you are under arrest.

Answer 6

It depends.

How do you want to portray the police? Professional or bumbling back woods pogues?

Is the statement he makes going to be used in court later in the story?

Let me know.