Can the police arrest and detain a person (specifically a minor) without telling them the charge? I am in a class in which I was assigned a &quot;Case&quot; to study. These were fake, and I was asked to point out who was guilty or at fault and for which charge. I asked the teacher: Is it legal to detain a minor, or anyone, without telling them the charge? (He told me &quot;Ask three before me&quot; so I did, then I asked again and he told me to keep asking. So here I am asking some other people. This is based in the United States of America btw.) For clarification, this hypothetical case stated that after the preliminary hearing, they cut the story off and we had to make a decision, even then no charge was exposed.
Arrests For Crimes A charge must be identified very early in the criminal justice process, typically upon booking an arrested person at a police station or jail, which will usually take place minutes to hours after an arrest is made. At the latest, a provisional charge will be revealed at a first appearance before a judge (which will usually take place within a day, or sometimes a bit longer on a weekend or holiday in rural areas whether it should or not), although the charges identified at that time can be amended later in the process. A plea of guilty or not guilty is entered at an arraignment, which sometimes is combined with a first court appearance and sometimes is conducted separately. A preliminary hearing happens much later in the criminal justice process, after an arraignment (which is sometimes combined with a first court appearance), and after counsel is assigned to represent the person who is charged. A preliminary hearing is an adversarial mini-trial before a judge at which the prosecution presents evidence sufficient to establish probable cause on previously disclosed charged in a somewhat summary fashion (not necessarily everything to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), and the attorney for the defendant can cross-examine witnesses, object to questions improper under the rules of evidence, and introduce exonerating evidence (although this last option is only rarely utilized). A preliminary hearing is a substitute for a grand jury indictment as a means to screen whether charges are supported by probable cause. Usually, but not in absolutely all cases, if the arrest is pursuant to an arrest warrant, the arrest warrant will be presented to the person being arrested immediately prior to, at the time of the arrest, or immediately after the arrest is made, and the arrest warrant will provide some insight into the charge. But, unless a state statute or court rule provides otherwise, a charge does not usually need to be disclosed during the actual process of making an arrest, or while the person arrested is being transported to a police station or jail for booking, although the charge often is disclosed at that time or even before the arrest is made. Frequently, someone is read their Miranda rights before the charge is identified. Some of the fine details are a matter of state specific court rules and statutes, but the general outline of the process described above is the U.S. constitutional requirement. The process for arresting a minor is not very different from the process for arresting an adult, but usually, when a minor is arrested, a parent or guardian must be promptly notified of the arrest and the charge, if possible. Many states have a minimum age for arresting a minor for committing a crime or juvenile delinquency offense, which is typically somewhere in the range from age seven to age twelve, although there is considerable variation on this point. This is an area of the law where active efforts to pass reform legislation to take a less punitive approach with younger minors are underway. Minors Taken Into Custody For Other Reasons Also, while adults are overwhelmingly arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime, a minor is sometime placed under law enforcement or social services custody in a manner that looks like an arrest, but isn't, for a reason other than a charge that the minor is actually believed to have committed a crime. For example, suppose that a five year old child is found in an apartment at which two adults presumed to be the child's mother and father, are found dead (the reason for their deaths doesn't really matter). In that situation, the law enforcement officer at the scene would generally take physical custody of the child pending the arrival of a social services officer at the scene who would then take physical custody of the child from the law enforcement officer until another suitable guardian could be located, even though there is no suspicion that the child committed a crime. The name for this process varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In New York State, for example, this is called &quot;person in need of supervision&quot; case (PINS for short), which is sometimes thought of as a civil custody matter and is sometimes classified as what is called a &quot;status offense&quot; that justifies the government taking custody of a minor even though the minor has not committed a crime.
Brief detentions and reasonable suspicion You can be briefly detained by police if they have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) What reasonable suspicion "means" can only be fully understood by reference to subsequent case law (which I will expand this answer to do), but as a basis, the court said in Terry that: the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion This standard has been reiterated as recently as in Heien v. North Carolina 574 U. S. ____ (2014), where they say "All parties agree that to justify this type of seizure [a traffic stop, in the case of Heien], officers need only reasonable suspicion — that is, a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of breaking the law" (internal quotation marks omitted). The reasonable suspicion standard was also used recently in Navarette v. California 572 U. S. ____ (2014). They reiterated that reasonable suspicion is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability, quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U. S. 325, 330 (1990). A mere "hunch" does not create reasonable suspicion, but the level of suspicion required by the reasonable suspicion standard is "obviously less than is necessary for probable cause". Arrests and probable cause To be arrested, police require probable cause. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949) In more detail, probable cause exists (from Brinegar v. U.S.): where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed Also: The rule of probable cause is a practical, nontechnical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating these often opposing interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice. As in the case of reasonable suspicion, the probable cause analysis is case-by-case and fact-intensive, so to understand the contours of probable cause will require reference to much subsequent case law. In Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964) the question before the court was entirely "whether or not the record in the case before us can support a finding of probable cause for the petitioner's arrest". In that case, it turned out that the information they had received about the arrestee was not sufficient for probable cause, but regardless, the test the court applied was whether the police had probable cause for the arrest. Notes While I am confident in the correctness of this answer, what each of these standards means will take hours of work to flesh out, which I plan to do. The courts have repeatedly reiterated and referred to these decisions/standards, but the analysis is very fact-intensive and is done case-by-case. Also, I realize the presentation is a little scattershot, as I'm first just looking to include relevant cases and statements the court has made about these standards, but I'll re-make it into a coherent story every once in a while.
If the question asks, "did you do X" where X is or includes a crime that you could be criminally prosecuted for, you can invoke the 5th amendment in refusing to answer that. I have seen that done and seen that objection to the question sustained in court. However, if admitting to X would provide only civil liability, then the 5th would not apply. At trial, you may also have to take care not to give direct testimony on things that are so closely related that you "open the door" to being required to answer that question. For example, you can't say "I don't owe because I did X" and then expect to not have to answer "So just to be clear, did you do X?" Also, depending on context, invoking the 5th might cause a jury to view your testimony more skeptically (cpast points out that "For civil cases, adverse inferences based on pleading the fifth are totally okay"), and if that's going to come up you should ask your attorney about whether or not it'd be a good idea strategically.
In general, you do not have civil recourse against the government for (lawful) legal process that you are the victim of. "Counterclaim" would only be applicable when A sues B, and B makes a counterclaim against A – the police don't sue you, they arrest you, and the prosecutor prosecutes you (or decides not to). If the police beat you up, you could sue them for violating your rights, under what is known as Section 1983. Given the scenario you describe, this comes closest to involving false arrest, meaning that there was no probable cause for arrest. Otherwise, the police have immunity for their actions. But if there is a legal arrest warrant, there is probable cause (existence of probable cause is the standard for issuing an arrest warrant), so no claim against the police will succeed. I am leaving out the anomalous concept of an unlawful arrest warrant, where a judge issued an arrest warrant but there is in fact no probable cause. Such a case would be covered by Section 1983, where either the judge or the swearing officer (or both) violated your rights.
If A reasonably suspects that B committed a felony, A may arrest B, which means that A may also use reasonable force to detain B. They can also arrest for a misdemeanor committed in their presence, if it constituted a breach of peace. It is, of course, up to A to be correct that the act is a felony or a breach of peace, and to know what is reasonable force. If your arrest is in fact not lawful, you may be sued (battery or false imprisonment) or prosecuted (battery or unlawful imprisonment). Punching a person in the shoulder is the felony of battery, and direct observation creates highly reasonable suspicion. In such circumstances, anyone could have arrested the child. Unlike a police arrest, a citizen is not required to Mirandize an arrested suspect. This memo summarizes citizens arrest law including case law for Washington state. The right to perform citizen's arrest is statutorily recognized as a defense under RCW 9A.16.020 The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases: ...(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody
Yes. Although there are numerous child-protection laws, there is nothing specific for (beggar) children in this scenario so it would fall within Criminal Force, an offence contrary to section 350 Indian Penal Code: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent ... or intending ... or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other. The punishment for which may be found at section 352 Whoever ... uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment ... for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. For completeness &quot;Force&quot; is described by section 349 as: A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling... [A substance could be, for example, a broom handle or a pan of water] Also, for completeness there's the alternative of Assault under section 351 if no force is used.
In Massachusetts where I live, here are the general guidelines: In re G.L. c. 268, § 32B(b). A person can be charged with resisting arrest only when the officer is acting under the color of his official position (meaning he is on duty and acting according to those duties). The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant knew that the person seeking to make the arrest was a “police officer.” The Commonwealth may do so by proving that the officer was in uniform or, if not in uniform, identified himself (herself) by exhibiting his (her) credentials as a police officer while attempting to make the arrest. Such credentials would include such things as a badge, insignia, identification card, police radio, or other police equipment such as a clearly identified police vehicle. Thus, in Massachusetts according to usual legal interpretation: (1) The officer must be on duty and acting in an official capacity. (2) The officer must be provably known to be a police officer by some means to the person charged. Resisting arrest must be ancillary to some other charge. You cannot just be charged with "resisting arrest" unless you are actually being arrested on some other charge (or interfering with someone else being arrested). So, as far as a search is concerned, even if the resisting arrest charge were thrown out, the real question would be why was the person being arrested in the first place? That would determine the admitability of the evidence.
You have pretty well enumerated when it is legal. On the face of it it appears that the 11 year old acted illegally. So, if he is not being prosecuted, why not? Age of criminal responsibility. Below a certain age (I don't know about Alabama but in NSW it is 12) a person cannot by law be held criminally responsible because they are deemed to lack the emotional and mental maturity to distinguish right from wrong; this is particularly relevant when the same action can be legal or illegal depending on rather nuanced circumstances. Public interest. A DA may consider that prosecution of this child in these circumstances is not in the public interest. Prospect of conviction. A sensible DA may decide that there is very little prospect that a jury will convict notwithstanding that there is adequate evidence to prove guilt. This is a subset of the public interest; it is in no one's interest to spend time and money on a trial that will probably end with an acquittal.