When a Detainer is an Arrest

[SixofNine]

On January 6th a homicide detective in the Fairfax County, Virginia police department sent a teletype to the jail in neighboring Prince William County. This message, a "detainer," is extremely common in law enforcement. In this case as in all others involving a detainer, the police and prosecutors in northern Virginia thought this message served merely as a request for a phone call -- "Let us know when you're ready to release him" is how many prosecutors characterize it -- and not as an arrest.

Virginia has a speedy trial statute on the books that requires a trial within five months of arrest. In this particular case a Virginia judge ruled that a detainer is not merely a request for notification, it is an arrest. He was acting on precedent within the state, particularly a 1993 ruling by the Virginia Court of Appeals that said detainers start the state's speedy trial clock because, though not a legally defined process, they carry the same weight as an arrest..

Consequently, D.C. sniper John Muhammed will not be tried for the murder of FBI employee Linda Franklin, and his trial for the murder of Kenneth Bridges in Spotsvylvania County is also in danger because they sent a detainer to the Prince William County jail in late 2002.

Fortunately, it's not a disaster in Muhammed's case because he has already received two death sentences in Prince William County. Virginia officials were trying to hedge their bets by getting Muhammed convicted in as many capital cases as possible in the event that one weaseled a technicality out of the appeals process. Still, if I were a loved one of one of the victims I would want the bastard convicted.

Muhammed still faces a host of murder charges outside of Virginia, and this ruling was an interpretation of a Virginia law by a Virginia Circuit Court judge, so the danger of precendent contagion beyond the state border is nonexistent. In fact, state legislators are now contemplating a tweak to the statutes to clearly define a detainer as something other than an arrest.

By the way, Muhammed's automatic appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court for his two murder convictions with death sentences are scheduled for next month.

Do the LEOs here or any of you consider a detainer to be an arrest? This ruling boggles my mind.

Brian

[Suchaknight]

On January 6th a homicide detective in the Fairfax County, Virginia police department sent a teletype to the jail in neighboring Prince William County. This message, a "detainer," is extremely common in law enforcement. In this case as in all others involving a detainer, the police and prosecutors in northern Virginia thought this message served merely as a request for a phone call -- "Let us know when you're ready to release him" is how many prosecutors characterize it -- and not as an arrest.

Virginia has a speedy trial statute on the books that requires a trial within five months of arrest. In this particular case a Virginia judge ruled that a detainer is not merely a request for notification, it is an arrest. He was acting on precedent within the state, particularly a 1993 ruling by the Virginia Court of Appeals that said detainers start the state's speedy trial clock because, though not a legally defined process, they carry the same weight as an arrest..

Do the LEOs here or any of you consider a detainer to be an arrest? This ruling boggles my mind.

Brian
It looks like you're saying that is considered the same as an arrest in VA, so if that's the case then they should act accordingly. IMO, prosecutors take way to much time to process their cases. The jails are full of people 'waiting' who do not have bail money or private attorneys. The concept of a 'speedy' trial is a joke. The judicial system in this country is a joke.

[SixofNine]

It looks like you're saying that is considered the same as an arrest in VA, so if that's the case then they should act accordingly.

I just wonder how it can be considered an arrest. It's merely a request, in this case from one county to another, that asks "Please call us when you're about to release this person."

You could talk me into agreeing that if the county holding Muhammed starts to hold him merely so that another county can come and pick him up, the speedy trial clock starts, but that's a far cry from this judge's ruling.

Brian

[Copzilla]

No, it's not an arrest. We also refer to them as "holds", which means "Don't release him without sending him to us, we want him too."

I'm confident this will be overturned.

[Steve]

This civilian was under the impression that when an arrest is made, the arresting officer has to read the suspect their Miranda rights. Correct?

If so, how could this be an arrest?

[Copzilla]

No, the arresting officer does not have to read Miranda Rights.

I've done that all the time. Had suspects scream at me after being arrested "YOU DIDN'T READ ME MY RIGHTS!!!!"

The response is "I only have to if I want to question you, and I don't want to question you, in fact I want you to shut the fuck up."

[Steve]

Are you serious? I honestly thought reading the Miranda rights was required! Do you have any links; it's not that I doubt you, I'm just a little shocked at being so wrong about something like this!

[SixofNine]

Are you serious? I honestly thought reading the Miranda rights was required! Do you have any links; it's not that I doubt you, I'm just a little shocked at being so wrong about something like this!

Not a legal link, but here's one:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm

Edit: Here's another:

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/m/mi/miranda_warning.html

Brian

[Steve]

Wow. I honestly did not know that Miranda was only required prior to questioning. Too much "Cops" on Fox, I suppose :)

[SixofNine]

Not only that, but if a policeman questions you when you're not under arrest (and therefore haven't been Mirandized yet) and you make incriminating statements, they can be used against you at trial.

Brian

[Steve]

That - I did know :)

[SixofNine]

That - I did know :)

Yeah, I guess that one's easy.

Cop: Who did this?

Perp: I did it!

Cop: You're under arrest.

rofl

Brian

[Copzilla]

OR - even after being arrested, having not been read Miranda Warning, if the perp makes a spontaneous statement that is incriminating, it can be used. I do that ALL THE TIME. I'll discuss the case with another officer in front of the perp, and when he rebuts the points, I'll use that info and pick it apart.

Example - true story - I worked an accident where a perp rolled a vehicle that wasn't his. Inside the vehicle I found a large amount of pot. Big pillow sized brick, wrapped in plastic wrap. We bag the perp, put him in the back of the car, he was not acknowledging it was his, despite the fact that he was attempting to conceal it according to witnesses. I never read him the Miranda Warning. We were talking about it, one officer asked "How much do you think it weighs?" I replied "Probably 25 pounds." Perp in the back seat being a belligerent asshole screams "IT'S 15 POUNDS YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!" Poof, the pot is his. Statement is admissible, being spontaneous and not solicited by the police. He gets strung for habitual violation and parole violation as well, no bond.

[SixofNine]

OR - even after being arrested, having not been read Miranda Warning, if the perp makes a spontaneous statement that is incriminating, it can be used.

Ah, the famous "spontaneous utterance" that is frequently a bone of contention between prosecutors and defense lawyers on "Law and Order" (although it's usually only a matter of dispute on that TV show when the prosecutors want to use it in its role as a valid exception to the hearsay rule).

I look forward to Dennis Farina's new character pulling this out of his Copzilla bag of tricks in future episodes. :)

Brian

[BigDeputyDog]

We call them "holds" here too. If we have a someone in custody who is a "person of interest" to another jurisdiction, we flag their jacket with the who, what and where info. A courtesy call is placed to the other agency before release.

BDD...

[Suchaknight]

Not only that, but if a policeman questions you when you're not under arrest (and therefore haven't been Mirandized yet) and you make incriminating statements, they can be used against you at trial.

Brian
Then why wouldn't the cop just ask his questions first, and then arrest the guy?

[Copzilla]

Because there is a point where enough probable cause has been obtained that the arrest is imminent.

To a certain degree, you can do that. If someone is rambling on, in an initial statement, those statements are admissible. For instance, if someone comes up and offers "I killed my girlfriend", and you respond "What? How? Where?" in an immediate effort to locate the scene and look for survivors, what he says from there would probably still be admissible. Now once it's been established that the crime was in fact committed, you would have to read him the Miranda Warning if you wanted to continue the interview.

There are some muddy lines in the process. For instance, when a DWI suspect is pulled over, the officer is in the process of evidence collection and can smell alcohol, red eyes, stumbling, weaving, the officer asks "Have you been drinking? How many?" In spite of the fact that the guy is a suspect and the probable cause has been established enough that an arrest is imminent, the statement is still admissible without the Miranda Warning.

Attorneys do squabble about this issue, but even now some judges are taking the stance that the Miranda Rights are well known in our society and it's not always necessary for them to be read in order for the statement to be admissible. In other words, the presumption can be made that the suspect already knows those rights, and are assigning the burden onto the defense that he did not.