PING: One of the US Lawyers (but not for legal help)

[Carman Bulldog]

So in Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 10 says that "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;"

Now, I know that in America, Miranda v Arizona equates to the Canadian 10(b) right.

My question is, what equates to the right to be informed of the reason for arrest or detention? Is that a specific case or is it usually just identified as Habeus Corpus.

No legal issues, I'm just working on a paper. Thanks in advance.

[molson]

I don't believe the U.S. constitution requires the officer to inform someone of the reason for arrest or detention. I know in my state, there's a statute that does require that. I imagine most states have something similar.

Section 19-608 – Idaho State Legislature

But even that wouldn't apply for a mere detention - a investigatory detention, where an officer may lawfully detain you upon mere suspicion as long as they're continuing to investigate, and then have to let you go when the investigation doesn't reveal anything for an arrest. An officer doesn't have to tip his or her hand and tell you why you're being detained, or why they pulled your car over.

There's also an Idaho statute statute requiring the officer to show a suspect the arrest warrant, when the arrest is made pursuant to warrant (which is only a portion of arrests). But that can just be done in the booking process at the jail.

And the reason the law would not be very well developed in this area is because there's generally no remedy. An officer not telling you why you're being arrested does not invalidate the underlying charge. And there's usually going to be no specific damages. So it's something that just wouldn't come up in the U.S. very often unless a particular state created a remedy by statute. So there's not much caselaw in the area, and what's there would be state appellate court interpretations of state statutes laying out the scope of the arrest power.

As an example that comes to mind, it's illegal to arrest in my state for having an invalid driver's license unless there's specific reason for the officer to believe the suspect won't show up for court, or unless there's a specific reason to question the suspect's identity. So one officer in my state unlawfully arrested someone for having an invalid license, without any of those exceptions. The suspect appealed the conviction on the ground that the arrest was unlawful. The Idaho Supreme Court held yup, the arrest was unlawful, but, the conviction was still good, and the Idaho legislature had not created any specific statutory remedy for an illegal arrest. So he could sue under general negligence tort theories, but his conviction would stand and the constitution did not require otherwise.

Habeas corpus is something completely different. That's the federal review of a case after the state procedures (appeal, post-conviction, post-conviction appeal) are completely done. And inmates and prisoners can file STATE habeas petitions too, but that's done differently in all 50 states - but briefly, it's a way to challenge your detention when you've exhausted your other remedies.

[Carman Bulldog]

This is all quiet interesting. It's a Law and Popular Culture class. The part of the paper that I'm at is talking about the My Cousin Vinny confession scene, where essentially it starts off as confusion about why the suspect has been arrested (thinking he just shoplifted a can of tuna and plans on confessing to that).

So, outside of a state having a statute that requires notification of reason for arrest, something like this might theoretically be possible (as unlikely as it may be in reality)?

In Canada, even if someone has been informed of their reason for arrest and given their right to counsel (and contacted a lawyer), if the police investigation starts going down another path (say the person has been arrested for shoplifting and then police start questioning the suspect about a murder), police are required to inform the person about this change in jeopardy and provide them with their right to counsel a second time.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

So in Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 10 says that "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;"

Now, I know that in America, Miranda v Arizona equates to the Canadian 10(b) right.

My question is, what equates to the right to be informed of the reason for arrest or detention? Is that a specific case or is it usually just identified as Habeus Corpus.

No legal issues, I'm just working on a paper. Thanks in advance.

Originally Posted by corbes

It depends on what you mean by the "right to be informed" of the reason for arrest. An American police officer doesn't necessarily have to tell you why you're under arrest. But there must be a reason ("probable cause") to have arrested you, and the Fourth Amendment entitles you to a prompt hearing before a judge ("arraignment") at which the government has to provide notice of the reasons why you were arrested (what criminal charges are being filed) and the judge decides whether those reasons were sufficient (whether the charges are supported by probable cause). See Gerstein v. Pugh, Gerstein v. Pugh :: 420 U.S. 103 (1975) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center , and County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, County of Riverside v. McLaughlin - Wikipedia. At the end of that process, you have been informed of the reasons for your arrest.

Habeas essentially means the government can't arbitrarily lock you up and throw away the key. They have to justify the detention to a judge, as corbes notes.

The Constitution also gives the defendant the right to a speedy trial, though that can be waived.

Between the two, someone detained by law enforcement generally finds out pretty quickly why they're being detained.

There's some "it's complicated" as well, mostly related either to terrorism or fears thereof.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not sure if you're familiar with the somewhat popular reality show down here called "Live P.D." - basically they have live feeds from several police departments a night & you can watch whatever calls (mostly mundane). Like "Cops" but with a less contrived feel.

My wife has gotten hooked on it over the past week or so, and phrases like "you're not under arrest, you're being detained" is pretty common. It's typically used while officers try to sort out what's going on amidst the confusion on scene. That may or may not lead to charges/arrest but I've yet to see a situation where any justification for "brief & cursory" detention was needed beyond "because I said so".

Another case that seems relevant to your question would be Devenpeck v Alford
DEVENPECK v. ALFORD [03-710] | FindLaw