Chapter Three

1
Chapter Three Arrest and Custody
He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare
At whatever time the deed took placeMacavity
wasnt there.
T. S. Eliot, Macavity The Mystery Cat, (1939)
2
KEY WORDS

• Terms to understand for this chapter

• Resisting Arrest
• Stop-and-Frisk
• Summons
• Temporary Detention
• Terry Stop

• Arrest
• Booking
• Consular Immunity
• Diplomatic Immunity
• Legislative Immunity
• Miranda Warning
• Private Person Arrest
• Reasonable Suspicion

3
OBJECTIVES

• After completing this chapter, you should be able
  to

• Explain the requirements of a valid arrest.
• Discuss the issues involving stop-and-frisk.
• Describe the immunities from arrest.
• Illustrate the Miranda requirements.
• Discuss the issue of using force in making an
  arrest.
• Explain the concept of territorial jurisdiction
  to makean arrest.

4
OBJECTIVES
(cont.)

• After completing this chapter, you should be able
  to

• Identify and describe the booking process.
• Explain the protections granted an out-of-state
  witness

5
Arrest of the Law Violator

• Under the Fourth Amendment, there are three
  levels of interaction between the police and an
  individual
• Consensual encounters - an individual is not
  detained police have not indicated he/she is
  not free to leave.
• Detention - police must have communicated in some
  manner, orally or by action, a person is not free
  to leave.
• police need reasonable suspicion based on
  articulable facts
• Arrest - involves a person being taken into
  custody.
• typically by physical restraint (handcuffs, etc.)
  or informing the person that he/she is under
  arrest
• a valid warrantless arrest, requires probable
  cause

6
Arrest of the Law Violator

• When a person violates a criminal law, traditions
  generally demand society should take some action.
• an arrest should be made
• Originally, the members or citizens of society
  were responsible for taking the violator into
  custody.
• failure to do so, or even withholding information
  abouta known crime from the authorities was a
  violation
• As law enforcement agencies were created,
  citizenswere relieved of much responsibility for
  making arrests.
• yet the citizen has not given up the right to
  make a private person arrest

7
Arrest of the Law ViolatorPrivate Person Arrest

• A private person arrest is an arrest performed by
  a civilian who lacks official government
  authority.
• sometimes referred to as a citizens arrest,
  legal in every state
• Though discouraged, thousands of private
  personarrests are made annually in this country.
  
• primarily by security guards employed by private
  companies
• Private person arrest generally requires the
  crime to have been committed or attempted in the
  presence ofthe arresting person.
• some states provide for arrest of a felon even
  though thecrime occurred in the absence of the
  private party

8
Arrest of the Law ViolatorLegrand v. Bedinger

• In Legrand v. Bedinger, the court stated the
  term arrest is derived from the French,
  arrester.
• signifies restraint of a mans person depriving
  him of his will and liberty, obedient to the
  will of the law
• Legally, an arrest has been defined as the taking
  of a person into custody in the manner authorized
  by law.
• It has been held that probable, or reasonable,
  cause is shown if a person of ordinary prudence
  would be ledto believe that a crime had been
  committed.
• but it must be more than a mere suspicion that
  acrime had been committed

9
Arrest of the Law ViolatorArrest by a Law
Enforcement Officer

• a law enforcement officer or peace officer is a
  person employed by some branch of the government
  and sworn to uphold the laws of the US and the
  state, county, orcity by which he or she is
  employed

10
Arrest of the Law ViolatorArrest by a Law
Enforcement Officer

• Law enforcement or peace officers may be placed
  in four basic categories.
• federal officers, employed by the US government
• state officers, employed by the state
• sheriffs, employed by the county or parish
• city police officers, employed by their
  respective cities

11
Arrests and WarrantsArrests Without a Warrant

• Arrest without a warrant is the most common form.
• historically always allowed under the common law
• courts hold requiring a warrant for every arrest
  as impractical

12
Arrests and WarrantsArrests Without a Warrant

• Police may not enter private homes to make
  warrantless arrests unless there are exigent or
  emergency circumstances or consent.
• courts have ruled hot pursuit of a suspect as
  he/she runsinto a home does not require a
  warrant
• additionally, if police believe waiting for a
  warrant willallow the suspect to destroy
  evidence, they may enter and make an arrest
  without a warrant

13
Arrests and WarrantsArrests With a Warrant

• An arrest warrant is a written order issued by
  the proper judicial officer, upon a showing of
  probable cause, commanding the arrest of a
  particular person.
• The Supreme Court, though upholding warrantless
  arrests, has stated that the deliberate
  determinationof magistrates is preferred over
  the hurried actionsof police officers.
• because it places determination of finding
  probablecause in the hands of a neutral
  magistrate
• Some jurisdictions allow for the use of
  telephonic arrest warrants.

14
Arrests and WarrantsArrests With a Warrant -
Requirements

• Arrest warrants must include certain elements
• The caption or title of the court from which the
  warrant is issued, date of issuance of the
  warrant, and the signature of the issuing
  official
• The name of the person to be arrested and
  description with particularity of the person to
  be seized.
• A description of the offense, normally is
  described in language of the statute or law the
  suspect violated.
• A command that officers take the suspect into
  custody and bring him or her before the proper
  judicial officer.

15
Stop-and-Frisk and Other Detentions

• Until 1967 search was an all-or-nothing concept
  subject to probable cause and warrant
  requirements.

16
Stop-and-Frisk and Other DetentionsTerry v. Ohio

• In Terry, an officer observed Terry and two other
  men walking back forth in front of a store, and
  decided the men were casing the store for a
  possible robbery.
• He grabbed Terry, turned him around, and patted
  him down, and found a pistol in ex-convict
  Terrys pocket.
• the Court found no Fourth Amendment violation
• The Court held a police officer may temporarily
  detain a person on reasonable suspicion of
  criminal activity.
• and may pat down the person for weapons on
  reasonable suspicion the pat down is necessary
  for safety reasons

17
Stop-and-Frisk and Other Detentions

• Stop-and-frisk is less than an arrest rules
  applied to temporary detention also apply to
  stop-and-frisk.
• It was a standard practice to stop suspicious
  persons in public places to question them or
  conduct investigations.
• There were Fourth Amendment questions, as
  officers generally do not have probable cause to
  detain and question individuals.

18
Stop-and-Frisk and Other DetentionsTemporary
Detentions

• Mere temporary detention for questioning is not
  considered to be an arrest.
• if police restraint goes beyond that reasonably
  necessaryfor questioning, an arrest may result
• Temporary vehicle detention is less than a full
  arrest
• probable cause necessary to support a temporary
  detentionis less than required for full arrest
• Detention starts the moment the officer directs a
  vehicle to stopas when an officer turns on the
  red lights.
• It is not a detention if the vehicle parked the
  officer asks the driver for his/her license or
  identification.

19
Stop-and-Frisk and Other DetentionsResonable
Suspicion

• Detention requires at least reasonable suspicion,
  based on specific facts that can be articulated
  to a court.
• in People v. Remiro, an appellate court upheld
  stoppingof a vehicle on the officers reasonable
  suspicion
• People v. Dominguez upheld detention of a
  vehiclewhen identities of persons in the vehicle
  were unknownand a warrant existed for the
  registered owner
• Remiro and Dominguez control only in California.
• though their rationale appears accepted by most
  other states
• A wanted flyer or a similar notice is
  sufficient basisto detain a vehicle and its
  occupants.

20
Stop-and-Frisk and Other DetentionsDistiguishing
Arrests Terry Detentions

• The leading Supreme Court decision is US v.
  Sharp.
• in which the length of the detention was
  considered
• The Court indicated a Terry-type stop as
  ordinarily of short duration.
• no longer than needed to effectuate purpose of
  the detention
• A warrantless protective sweep of a residence by
  police making lawful arrest in the residence is
  considered legal.
• if police have reasonable suspicion the residence
  may contain an individual who poses a danger to
  the officers or to others
• The sweep should be a quick limited search and
  narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection.

21
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make Arrest

• It is important to determine if an officer the
  authority to make an arrest, particularly when
  he/she has no warrant.
• if the officer does not have authority, the
  arrest will be declared unlawful
• A significant factor is whether the officer was
  in his/her territorial jurisdiction.
• It long held that if an outlaw outdistanced a
  sheriff tothe county line, the sheriff had to
  discontinue pursuitas he had no authority to
  arrest in the next county.
• to prevent escape of an outlaw under these
  circumstances,the hot pursuit rule was developed

22
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make ArrestUniform
Act of Fresh Pursuit

• Today, most states have adopted what is known as
  the Uniform Act of Fresh Pursuit.
• if an officer is in hot or fresh pursuit of an
  offender, he/she can follow the offender into
  another jurisdiction to make an arrest
• It is generally held if a pursuit is
  uninterrupted and continuous, it is a fresh
  pursuit.
• there is no specific distance the officer may
  travel within the state to make the arrest
• The act provides that after arrest is made, the
  officer must take the person before a local
  magistrate.
• for a hearing to determine the lawfulness of the
  arrest

23
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make ArrestLimited
Arrest Powers

• Today a few states grant local officers the right
  to make an arrest without a warrant anywhere in
  the state.
• based on the theory that when sworn, the officer
  swears to uphold the constitution laws of the
  state as well as local ordinances, giving the
  officer statewide arrest powers
• In most states the local officer has authority to
  make arrests without a warrant only within the
  territorial jurisdiction in which he/she is
  employed.
• except in fresh pursuit instances

24
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make ArrestLimited
Arrest Powers

• Authority has been granted in some states
  permitting lawful arrest beyond the officers
  area with permission from the chief or sheriff
  where the arrest is to be made.
• based upon an old posse comitatus right of a
  sheriff
• Under posse comitatus, the arresting officer is,
  in a sense, a temporary officer of the
  jurisdiction in which the arrest is made.
• Right to arrest beyond the officers area of
  employment has been granted in instances when the
  offender is wanted in the officers area of
  employment.

25
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make ArrestState
Police Agencies

• All states except Hawaii have some type of state
  police or law enforcement system with statewide
  jurisdiction.
• states vary in power of the state police to make
  arrests
• In addition, a number of investigative agencies
  in most states have limited authority and arrest
  powers.
• employed to perform specific duties, such as game
  wardens
• Although the territorial jurisdiction of state
  police is restricted to the state boundaries, the
  Uniform Act of Fresh Pursuit is applicable to
  these agencies as well as to local officers.

26
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make ArrestFederal
Law Enforcement Agencies

• Technically, the only peace officers of the US
  government are Justice Department US marshals.
• as with the states, a number of federal
  investigativeagencies have emergency arrest
  powers
• All federal officers have territorial
  jurisdiction throughout the US and its
  possessions.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
  established in 1908, has investigative
  jurisdiction over all federal violations not
  specifically assigned to other agencies.
• created in part because of other agencies
  inability to investigate arrest corrupt
  politicians and business leaders

27
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make ArrestFederal
Law Enforcement Agencies

• The Federal Drug Enforcement Administration is
  now a part of the FBI.
• The Immigration Naturalization Service, of
  which the Border Patrol is a part, is in the
  Department of Justice.
• The US Treasury Department Secret Service was
  created in 1865 to investigate curtail
  counterfeiting.
• after the assassination of President William
  McKinley in 1901, the Secret Service was charged
  with protecting the president
• Other agencies within the US Treasury Department
  are Customs Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
  Service the Internal Revenue Service and the US
  Postal Service.

28
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make
ArrestDepartment of Homeland Security

• After the terrorist attacks of September 11,
  2001, President George W. Bush created the Office
  of Homeland Security, with mission to do the
  following
• prevent terrorist attacks within the US
• reduce Americas vulnerability to terrorism
• minimize the damage and recover from attacks that
  do occur
• Tom Ridge was the first director.

29
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make
ArrestDepartment of Homeland Security

• The Department of Homeland Security has four
  divisions
• Border and Transportation Security - responsible
  for securing borders and transportation systems,
• Emergency Preparedness and Response - ensures the
  preparedness of emergency response professionals.
• Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
  Countermeasures - leads efforts in preparing for
  and responding to the full range of terrorist
  threats involving weapons of mass destruction.

30
Territorial Jurisdiction to Make
ArrestDepartment of Homeland Security

• The Department of Homeland Security has four
  divisions

• Information Analysis and Infrastructure
  Protection - merges under one roof the capability
  to identify and assess current and future threats
  to the homeland, map those threats against our
  current vulnerabilities, inform the president,
  issue timely warnings, and immediately take or
  effect appropriate preventive and protective
  action.

31
Force in Effecting an Arrest

• Statutes of most states provide that any peace
  officer who has reasonable cause to believe that
  the person to be arrested has committed a public
  offense may use reasonable force to effect the
  arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome
  resistance.
• but there seems to be doubt as to degree of force
  thatmay be used by a private person
• It is generally held an officer may break open a
  door or window where the person to be arrested is
  located.
• unless there is life danger to the officer or
  others, the officer must first demand admittance
  explain why it is desired

32
Force in Effecting an Arrest

• The officer may not use force disproportionate to
  resistance met.
• if undue force is used, the officer could be
  guilty of violating the civil rights of the
  accused
• If excessive force was used in a particular
  instance is a matter determined by a board of
  inquiry, jury, or judge.
• the question is whether force used was that an
  ordinary, prudent person would have used under
  the circumstances
• Mistreatment of an accused once he/she is under
  control could also be a violation of the
  accuseds civil rights.

33
Force in Effecting an ArrestCalling for
Assistance

• In making an arrest, an officer or a private
  person may call upon as many persons as are
  deemed necessary for assistance in making the
  arrest.
• Most states make it a violation to refuse to
  assist an officer making an arrest when summoned
  to do so.
• again, based on the posse comitatus policy that a
  sheriffhad the authority to deputize members of
  a community
• In general, no prosecutive action can be taken
  against anyone for refusing to assist the private
  person in making an arrest.

34
Force in Effecting an ArrestCalling for
Assistance

• When a person responds to an officers call or
  demand for assistance, he/she has the same rights
  and privileges as the officer.
• in effect, a temporary law enforcement officer,
  with theright to use reasonable force to effect
  the arrest
• If the person called upon to assist the officer
  acts in good faith, he/she is protected from
  civil liability.

35
Force in Effecting an ArrestResisting Arrest

• Generally, it is a violation to willfully resist,
  delay, or obstruct a peace officer in the
  performance of his/her duty, including making an
  arrest.
• most states are silent on resisting arrest by a
  private person
• States have provided that a person is under duty
  to refrain from using force or weapon to resist
  such arrest.
• It was previously held at common law that a
  person could resist an unlawful arrest.
• followed in some states whether the arrest is
  beingmade by an officer or a private person

36
Force in Effecting an ArrestResisting Arrest

• Although a person may not resist an unlawful
  arrest in most states, he/she is not without
  recourse.
• one is entitled to seek immediate release from
  custody bya writ of habeas corpus proceeding
• and may sue those responsible for the illegal
  arrest for damages in civil court
• Once the arrest of a suspect is completed, he/she
  should be searched for weapons and evidence.
• Depending upon the circumstances of the case, it
  may be advisable to search the immediate area
  where the arrest took place.

37
Miranda and Its Effect

• Before the US Supreme Court decided Miranda v.
  Arizona, confessions and accompanying
  interrogations were decided on a case-by-case
  method.
• This approach reviewed the circumstances
  surrounding the interrogation to determine
  whether the suspects will was broken by the
  police.
• The interrogation was considered improper if it
  violated the suspects due process rights.

38
Miranda and Its EffectPre-Miranda Techniques

• In Brown v. Mississippi, a defendant was tied to
  the tree and whipped until he finally confessed
  to murder.
• the court held the confession was a product of
  coercion and brutality violated Fourteenth
  Amendment due process rights
• In Ashcraft v. Tennessee, a defendant was
  questioned continuously for two days regarding
  murder of his wife.
• as the defendant was denied rest sleep the
  entire time, the court held the confession was
  involuntary and inadmissible

39
Miranda and Its EffectPre-Miranda Techniques

• In Escobedo v. Illinois, the defendant was
  arrested and interrogated for several hours at
  the police station.
• Escobedo repeatedly requested to see his
  attorney, who was at the police station,
  demanding to see his client.
• police refused both requests and finally obtained
  confession
• The court held Escobedo was denied right to
  counsel, and no statement from him could be used
  at trial
• the decision was not clear when right to counsel
  attaches
• The stage was set for the US Supreme Court to
  clear up the confusion that had resulted from its
  previous rulings.

40
Miranda and Its EffectThe Case

• In Miranda, the defendant was arrested at home in
  Phoenix, Arizona, in connection with the rape and
  kidnapping of a female.
• and was taken to a police station for questioning
• At the time, he was twenty-three years old, poor,
  and basically illiterate.
• After being questioned for two hours, he
  confessed to the crime.

41
Miranda and Its EffectErnesto Miranda
Ernesto Miranda, 27, listens as the jury
deliberates his case in Phoenix, Arizona,
February 24, 1967. The landmark decision
requiring police to inform suspects oftheir
rights was named after Miranda. (Source AP
Photo.)
42
Miranda and Its EffectThe Ruling

• The Supreme Court issued its now famous Miranda
  warning requirement stating the following
• We hold that when an individual is taken into
  custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom the
  privilege against self-incrimination is
  jeopardized He must be warned prior to any
  questioning that he has a right to remain silent,
  that anything he says can be used against him in
  a court of law, that he has a right to an
  attorney, and that if he cannotafford an
  attorney one will be appointed for him priorto
  any questioning if he so desires.

43
Miranda and Its EffectThe Safeguards

• In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court
  established safeguards for individuals being
  interrogated by police.
• most people know the Miranda decision requires
  police officers to advise defendants of their
  constitutional rights
• In reality, Miranda established a four-prong test
  to be satisfied by affirmative answers to all
  four questions before a suspects statements can
  be admitted.
• Was the statement voluntary?
• Was the Miranda warning given?
• Was there a waiver by the suspect?
• Was the waiver intelligent and voluntary?

44
Miranda and Its Effect Eroding of Miranda

• Miranda did not prevent statements obtained in
  violation of its rules from being used to impeach
  credibility of a defendant who took the witness
  stand.
• in Harris v. New York, the Court held it was
  proper to use such statements to determine
  whether the defendant was telling the truth
• Voluntary statements made without having received
  the Miranda warning are admissible.
• even though the defendant is later advised of
  his/her rights and waives those rights

45
Miranda and Its Effect Eroding of Miranda

• In Oregon v. Elstad, the defendant made
  incriminating statements without receiving his
  Miranda warning.
• After being advised of his rights, he waived them
  and signed a confession.
• the Court held the self-incrimination clause of
  the Fifth Amendment did not require suppression
  of the written confession because of the earlier
  unwarned admission
• In Illinois v. Perkins, the Supreme Court held
  that an undercover officer posing as an inmate
  need not give a jailed defendant the Miranda
  warning before asking questions that produce
  incriminating statements.

46
Miranda and Its Effect Eroding of Miranda

• In Arizona v. Fulminante, the Court held the
  harmless error rule applicable to cases of
  involuntary confession.
• In Davis v. US, the Court considered degree of
  clarity necessary for a suspect to invoke his
  Miranda rights.
• In 2000, the Supreme Court, in Dickerson v. US,
  held the Miranda decision was of constitutional
  origin.
• and therefore Congress may not overrule its scope
  or effect
• After years of suspects avoiding interrogation,
  invoking Miranda, the Court is taking a more
  reasonable and practical approach to this
  controversial issue.

47
Immunity from ArrestDiplomatic

• Diplomatic Immunity - international agreements
  between nations exchanging representatives are
  the bases for diplomatic immunity.
• the purpose is to contribute to friendly
  relations and ensure efficient performance of
  diplomatic missions
• While these persons have complete immunity from
  arrest, detention, or prosecution, it does not
  give them blanket authority to disregard the laws
  of the US.
• if a member of the diplomatic corps commits a
  crime, the State Department may request that the
  member be recalled from the country

48
Immunity from ArrestConsular

• Consular Immunity - consuls and deputies are also
  representatives of foreign nations, with only
  limited immunity.5
• in all cases, however, they are to be treated
  with due respect
• Consular officers are not liable for arrest or
  detention pending trial except in cases of a
  serious felony.
• immunity does not include family members or
  servants
• Each member of these groups should have official
  identification in his/her possession
• whereby a peace officer may determine the
  official status of the member and the immunity to
  which he/she is entitled

49
Immunity from ArrestLegislative

• Legislative Immunity - most states have some
  typeof provision in their statutes granting
  limited immunity to legislative members.
• Many of the states hold that legislative immunity
  relates only to arrest arising out of civil
  matters.
• and there is no immunity from arrest on a
  criminal charge

50
Immunity from ArrestOut-of-State Witnesses

• The Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of
  Witnesses from Without the State in Criminal
  Cases has been adopted by most of the states.
• if a person enters a state in obedience of a
  subpoena totestify, he/she shall not be subject
  to arrest in connectionwith any crime committed
  in the state prior to his/her entrance into the
  state to testify
• The person is also granted a reasonable time to
  leave the state after testifying without being
  subject to arrest.
• but is not granted any immunity from arrest for a
  crimethat he/she may commit while in the state
  to testify

51
Booking

• Booking consists of recording the arrest in
  official law enforcement records, fingerprinting,
  and photographing the accused.
• when people are arrested, the usual procedure is
  totake them to the police station for booking
• If the charge is a bailable offense, the accused
  is entitled to post bail at this time.
• If bail is not posted, the accused will be
  searched and placed in jail until he/she does
  post bail or until final prosecution takes place.

52
BookingRight to Telephone Calls

• The accused is entitled to be informed of the
  offense for which the accused is being arrested.
• another right provided by statutes of some states
  isthe right to make telephone calls
• This right has been incorporated into laws to
  prohibit individuals from being held without
  anyone knowing that they have been arrested.
• to prevent them from being held incommunicado
• Some states also require that if the arrested
  person is physically unable to make the calls,
  he/she is entitled to the assistance of an
  officer.

53
Issuance of a Citation

• At one time in our history, all criminal
  offenders were brought to court with force.
• even in civil matters, an arrest was frequently
  used
• Today, if the defendant fails to appear as
  requested,the person bringing suit is given
  judgment by default.
• Even in criminal matters, particularly minor
  violations, efforts are made to persuade the
  accused to come to court with as little
  inconvenience to all as possible.
• when a warrant of arrest is issued, the person
  named in the warrant must be taken into custody,
  booked, and transported for arraignment unless
  he/she posts bail before arraignment

54
Issuance of a Citation

• A citation (sometimes referred to as a summons)
  is a written notice issued to a violator to
  appear in court.
• listing the violators name, address, offense
  committed
• setting forth time, place, and date the violator
  is to appear
• If the arrested person signs the citation
  agreeing to appear in court as directed, he/she
  is entitled to be released without further action
  being taken at that time.
• it is generally within discretion of the officer
  whethera citation will be issued for a
  misdemeanor violation
• Some agencies have a policy of taking an offender
  into custody, booking and then releasing on a
  citation.

55
Issuance of a CitationCitation Court Procedure

• In some jurisdictions, a copy of the citation is
  filed with the court to become the accusatory
  document.
• eliminating the necessity of the officers filing
  a complaint
• In others, a copy furnished to the prosecuting
  attorney, serves as the basis of a complaint
  filed with the court.
• After the citation is issued and before
  arraignment,the violator may post bail for
  his/her appearance.
• if the violator fails to appear as agreed, bail
  may be forfeited
• The judge may order that no further proceedings
  shall take place on the matter or may issue a
  bench warrant.

56
Summons

• Technically a summons differs from a citation.
• The true summons, issued by a judge in lieu of an
  arrest warrant, commands the accused to appear in
  court at a specified time.
• like a warrant, based upon a complaint filed with
  the court
• eliminates need to arrest and bring him/her
  before the court
• it may be personally delivered or mailed to the
  accused
• A summons may be issued when a judge feels the
  accused will appear as commanded.
• if the person named fails to appear as commanded,
  a warrant of arrest will be issued

57
SUMMARY

• Important topics for this chapter

• Police encounters are of three types consensual,
  detention, and arrest.
• The arrest by a private person is sometimes
  referred to as a citizen's arrest.
• Thousands of arrests are made by private persons
  in this country.
• An arrest is the taking of a person in custody in
  a manner authorized by law.

58
SUMMARY
(cont.)

• Important topics for this chapter

• Probable cause to arrest exists when there is
  evidence that a crime has probably been committed
  and that the person to be arrested committed it.
• An arrest with a warrant is presumed to be legal.
• There is a legal preference for arrests made with
  a warrant.
• The Terry v. Ohio case developed the concept of
  stop- and-frisk.
• A mere temporary detention is not considered an
  arrest.

59
SUMMARY
(cont.)

• Important topics for this chapter

• A detention requires at least reasonable
  suspicion.
• A nonfederal law enforcement officer's
  jurisdiction to make an arrest is determined by
  state law.
• The Uniform Act of Fresh Pursuit has been adopted
  by most states. It permits a continuous pursuit
  of a fleeing person across jurisdictional lines.
• Generally, federal law enforcement officers have
  jurisdiction to arrest anywhere within the US.
• An officer may use reasonable force to effect an
  arrest.

60
SUMMARY
(cont.)

• Important topics for this chapter

• Under most circumstances, it is illegal to
  willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a peace
  officer in the performance of his or her duty,
  including makingan arrest.
• The Miranda rule requires that before a suspect
  is interrogated while in custody, the suspect
  must be advised of his or her Miranda rights.
• Certain individuals are immune from arrest
  becauseof statutory regulations.

61
Chapter End