Charged with a crime does that mean there was an arrest?

[leslie82]

Jurisdiction

Nebraska

Random but - I saw an article from local news about a teenager (18 year old) arrested for child pornography. The article states the 18 year old, after an investigation found him to be in possession of illegal images and downloads of child pornography on his phone and computer, faces two counts of child pornography charges. His lawyer requested a psychological evaluation so his case got continued.

Then it's stated in the article that his family previously disputed the news organization's and the Sheriff's office assertion that he was arrested. His family says he's innocent (of course they do).

So I made a comment that I'm pretty sure if you get charged with a crime you get arrested and that child porn doesn't just end up on someone's phone and computer. But let me guess it wasn't his or his family will be along to defend him. Sure as shit some family member commented and told me to "shut my mouth" on things I don't know and that he wasn't arrested. (Oh his mom sent me a private message too - real stable family there).

So question is - is someone always arrested if they are charged with a crime? Are there times someone is not arrested when charged with a crime?

 

[mightymoose]

No, an actual arrest does not always happen, however often times arrests do happen without people realizing it even occurred.
Whether an arrest happened in this case or not... No way for us to tell.

 

[zddoodah]

is someone always arrested if they are charged with a crime?

No.

Are there times someone is not arrested when charged with a crime?

Yes.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Would someone care to elaborate on the "No" answer to the OP's question,because,an "Arrest" occurs before someone is formally charged on the offense they were arrested for.
The Police can arrest someone simply based on "probable Cause,"but for lack of sufficient evidence,the Prosecutor never formally charges them.
You mentioned that he has a Lawyer,and that "his case"got continued,that's proof enough right there that he had already been taken into custody(arrested,)and booked on the Complaint.After that,the Prosecutor reviews(Screens)the case for a determination on whether or not there is sufficient.evidence to proceed to trial.
I'm been in law enforcement for 18 years,and that's how it works.

 

[zddoodah]

Would someone care to elaborate on the "No" answer to the OP's question,because,an "Arrest" occurs before someone is formally charged on the offense they were arrested for.

That's probably what happens more commonly, but not always. Sometimes charges are filed and an arrest is never made. Sometimes charges are filed before the arrest occurs. Bottom line: while charges being filed means it's probable than an arrest has occurred, it is not a sure thing that an arrest has occurred just because charges are filed.

 

[Highwayman]

I'm been in law enforcement for 18 years,and that's how it works.

Here I thought you were a doctor seeking justice.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Here I thought you were a doctor seeking justice.

LOL,Thank you,that's hilarious.
No,the "MD" in my username stands for "Masters Degree,"and that would be in "Criminal Justice."

 

[4Justice_MD]

That's probably what happens more commonly,

No,that is what happens,"Period,"and you still did not "elaborate,"but merely just expanded your "NO" answer into sentences.
Now,I'm not sure,but I assume your probably talking about an "indictment,"on an individual,that takes place before their arrest.If so,in a very few select cases that happens,and when it does the prosecutor has very good reasons for trying to get the person charged,before making the arrest.I won't go into those here.
Suffice it to say,here in the OP's case,we know the guy was arrested,because he has a pending court case with his Attorney.

 

[mightymoose]

Perhaps things just work differently in your location.
Charges are filed all the time before an arrest occurs. That results in a warrant which may in turn result in a physical arrest, or if a minor offense it might be resolved with a citation to appear in court which is technically an arrest, but many people would not realize it.
Many people answer to criminal charges without ever being physically arrested.

 

[zddoodah]

No,that is what happens,"Period,"and you still did not "elaborate,"but merely just expanded your "NO" answer into sentences.

I'm not sure what elaboration you want. The OP's question was very simple: Is there always an arrest before charges are filed. The answer is no, arrests are not always made before charges are filed. If you don't agree with that, that's great.

Now,I'm not sure,but I assume your probably talking about an "indictment,"on an individual,that takes place before their arrest.If so,in a very few select cases that happens

And right here you have conceded that my answer stated above is correct. Also, all federal felonies require indictments, so it's hardly "a very few select cases," and that doesn't even consider the frequency of the practice in the 50 states (as a whole or in the OP's state, Nebraska, in particular). Of course, even in cases where indictments are sought, the arrest may precede the indictment.

Suffice it to say,here in the OP's case,we know the guy was arrested,because he has a pending court case with his Attorney.

We know no such thing. We know that (assuming the OP is accurately summarizing the article) some local news organization reported that the accused had been arrested, and we know that one or more member's of the accused's family disputes the assertion that the accused was arrested. We also know that the article reported that the accused is facing various "counts" and that the accused's lawyer got "his case . . . continued," so it's reasonable to conclude that charges have been filed. We know nothing beyond that, and we don't know if an arrest occurred. Nor do we know whether the case is pending in state or federal court.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Perhaps things just work differently in your location.
Charges are filed all the time before an arrest occurs. That results in a warrant which may in turn result in a physical arrest, or if a minor offense it might be resolved with a citation to appear in court which is technically an arrest, but many people would not realize it.
Many people answer to criminal charges without ever being physically arrested.

No,my jurisdiction is pretty common to most,but there are minor differences from one state to another,when it comes to whether an "arrest," will be made,or citation givenand also,at the point when "charges are considered to be filed,and by who,officer or prosecutor.
That charges are filled all the time before an arrest occurs,is not totally correct as I stated earlier,the indictment by a Grand Jury,that "sometimes,"(usually in high profile and organized crime cases,)that proceeds an arrest,is very small compared to how most criminal suspects are arrested.
The citation instance that you spoke of,is an example of a charge on a minor offense or "infraction,is a "detention,"(another form of an arrest,)but is not a "full fledged" arrest,such as had to be the case in the Op's post.I did not bring that up earlier,because it did not apply to whether the guy here had actually been arrested.
Finally,and once again,we do know that the guy here was arrested(full fledged arrest,)for two reason.(1)He would not have given a citation for the very serious charges of "Child Pornography,and(2)he has another pending court case,and already has an Attorney.An Arraignment/First Appearance,does not take place unless someone has already been arrested,and the fact that he also had to be charged,well,that goes without saying.

 

[mightymoose]

In my area it is not uncommon to issue citations for misdemeanors or even to serve some warrants by issuing a citation. Around here some people just can't get in the door of the jail if the offense isn't big enough (even for some felonies) or there is a public safety issue.
Even in the case above regarding possession of images, in my area I doubt that would result in arrest. After the investigation the case would be sent to the DA and if charges were filed either a warrant would issue OR the accused would receive a letter to appear in court with a warrant to follow if they don't come. The filing of charges does not mean an arrest actually occurred, but usually by the time someone gets to court they have either been arrested, cited, or voluntarily turned themselves in for booking and release (which counts as an arrest).
I have to disagree that (1) and (2) in your last post indicate an arrest has occurred as practices surely vary by jurisdiction.
Personally, I suspect the person was technically arrested by an alternate means and does not realize it, which results in the family denying it occurred.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Even in the case above regarding possession of images, in my area I doubt that would result in arrest. After the investigation the case would be sent to the DA and if charges were filed either a warrant would issue OR the accused would receive a letter to appear in court with a warrant to follow if they don't come.

I won't attempt to debate with you over the procedures your particular jurisdiction allows on arrest between misdemeanor and felony offences,and I'm well aware that each state is free to make it's own laws,and criminal procedures.Still,on this point,with regards to the very serious nature of this guy's crime,the fact that possession of child pornography,is also a federal offence as well as a violation of state law,and whether you realize it or not,it also is,a "public safety" issue,I respectfully,have to disagree with you on your state,not apprehending this guy,and rather quickly to.To do otherwise,they would be neglecting their sworn duties to uphold the law,and protect their citizens safety,in this case,their children's safety.Anyway,I guess that's neither here nor there,but it does leave room for doubt,A LOT OF IT.

The filing of charges does not mean an arrest actually occurred, but usually by the time someone gets to court they have either been arrested, cited, or voluntarily turned themselves in for booking and release (which counts as an arrest).

Now,I'm really glad you said that.If you go back two posts above,you will note that I said,

)he has another pending court case,and already has an Attorney.An Arraignment/First Appearance,does not take place unless someone has already been arrested,and the fact that he also had to be

You see,it doesn't matter whether,federal and/or state charges were filed,nor whether a state or federal prosecutor sought an indictment prior to his arrest,in any case,whether state or federal,there has to be an arrest before an Arraignment/Initial Appearance takes place,so this is how,we can know,he had already been arrested.

Personally, I suspect the person was technically arrested by an alternate means and does not realize it, which results in the family denying it occurred.

Well,now,here's where any of us can speculate,and assume anything we want too about the news story on the arrest,whether charges were filed in state or federal court(again that doesn't matter,)or the reason(s) why the family is denying the arrest.
Personally,I think since the story is out there for all to read,the family is trying to cast doubts about the arrest in an attempt to make the guy seem innocent,after all,it is a very shameful thing to be accused of,and to me,that is more probable than anything else.It would be very interesting to know what "army judge" has to say on the subject.

 

[4Justice_MD]

I'm not sure what elaboration you want. The OP's question was very simple: Is there always an arrest before charges are filed. The answer is no, arrests are not always made before charges are filed. If you don't agree with that, that's great.

Well,that would be the "elaboration,"in your response to my earlier post,asking you to elaborate on your "NO" answer to the OP,and you should be able to see from all my other posts in this thread,that i was not "entirely," disagreeing with your answer,but felt like you should have expounded on it further so as to be "informative to the OP,and other viewers reading the thread.

And right here you have conceded that my answer stated above is correct

Not knowing exactly what you were basing your answer on(no one on here is a mind reader,)Once again,I was giving you the benefit of any doubt,and in part,agreeing with you.I hope you now get that.

. Also, all federal felonies require indictments, so it's hardly "a very few select cases," and that doesn't even consider the frequency of the practice in the 50 states (as a whole or in the OP's state, Nebraska, in particular). Of course, even in cases where indictments are sought, the arrest may precede the indictment.

Now here,you just ran "a foul."First off,"Indictments" are only used in about half the states,not "in the 50 states,"and yes,Nebraska,does use the Grand Jury.
Next,most crimes are violations against the state under The US Constitution's,"Police Power" given to the states to make their own laws,so it also follows,that most arrests,both felony,and misdemeanors are made at the state level.
That said,"all federal felonies" requiring indictments,make only only a very small percentage of all total crimes,and arrests for those crimes,so "YES," it is indeed,as I said earlier,"a select few cases" where indictment,proceeds an arrest,and at the prosecutions "discretion,"they are only done in limited circumstances.

We know no such thing. We know that (assuming the OP is accurately summarizing the article) some local news organization reported that the accused had been arrested, and we know that one or more member's of the accused's family disputes the assertion that the accused was arrested. We also know that the article reported that the accused is facing various "counts" and that the accused's lawyer got "his case . . . continued," so it's reasonable to conclude that charges have been filed. We know nothing beyond that, and we don't know if an arrest occurred. Nor do we know whether the case is pending in state or federal court.

If you want to be 100% accurate on this point,truth is,"we know,"nothing at all,including whether the OP made the whole story up,but for the sake of responding to the OP's questions,and for the "forum" itself,we assume we are given true,and accurate information,otherwise,we should just call it quits now.
Now,it fair to say,as reported in the news story,that the defendant had his Arraigment/Initial Appearance,and "fairly assuming that he did,he was definitely arrested,a point,really the main point,you failed to see I was making,and not whether it's ever possible that a person can be charged with a crime before they are arrested on that charge..

 

[zddoodah]

If you want to be 100% accurate on this point,truth is,"we know,"nothing at all,including whether the OP made the whole story up,but for the sake of responding to the OP's questions,and for the "forum" itself,we assume we are given true,and accurate information,otherwise,we should just call it quits now.

I don't disagree with this, but the facts of the case at hand are not relevant to the questions asked. "Is someone always arrested if they are charged with a crime?" No. "Are there times someone is not arrested when charged with a crime?" Yes. And now we're right back where we started.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Btw...I think it's very important to note that "all" total arrests within the 50 states are made on Misdemeanors,not felonies,which do not require any indictment.

 

[4Justice_MD]

I don't disagree with this, but the facts of the case at hand are not relevant to the questions asked.

Yes they are too.She did indeed ask the much bigger question about "arrests,"in general,but you cannot 'rightly" say,she didn't want to know,if the guy in question had been arrested,since there was a dispute over that by his family.Really,you could be fair in assuming,the question was one and the same.

 

[army judge]

Federal arrests explained by the FBI


A Brief Description of the Federal Criminal Justice Process

 

[leslie82]

This is the article - and actually the news organization modified their paragraph that stated "The family disputes that he was arrested..."

Here's the article:

The article states that the county sheriff says that an investigation found the 18 year old to be in possession of illegal images and downloads of child pornography on his phone and computer."

It states he faces two counts of child pornography charges. It's in county court so it's state charges - might be in district court. It said county court in the article. His lawyer asked for a psych eval for his client. The judge continued the arraignment until the eval is complete.

His family tells the news that the teen is innocent. If found guilty he can face up to four years in prison.

Anyone who commented on the article his family just attacked. They are so adamant he didn't get arrested but not upset he's been charged with two counts of child porn...maybe it's pics of his 17 year old girlfriend. Who knows? It's still child porn. It would be child porn if he had nude photos of himself even. I don't really care I just found it odd that his family is so adamant he didn't get arrested and thought it odd he's been charged but was never arrested. At the end of the day no skin off my back. I sure wouldn't talk to anyone I knew who got charged with possession of child porn. I wouldn't be defending a family member or friend on FB unless I was absolutely certain that they were framed or something.

He also waived his right to a preliminary hearing I see in another article. There it says his family disputed to the news and sheriff office that he was arrested. On comments "He never had handcuffs slapped on him so he wasn't arrested" and just putting all his business out there. Yet mad at people who are commenting based on what the news got from the police. Social media...and people in that town are very easily offended about things in their town. Apparently this all started in July this year and the sheriff said then that this guy was arrested over the weekend in the beginning of July and his family disputed then and still disputed he was ever arrested.

I found this also from the county sheriff press releases from July that he was arrested following an investigation into child pornography. He was cited for allegedly possessing images and video of underage children on his computer and phone. He was scheduled to appear in court the following month. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children assisted in the investigation.

I honestly just found it mind boggling that his mother and some other family member felt the need to private message me to call me a liar for commenting on a news story and copying and pasting the news article and questioning how you can dispute someone get arrested if charged with child porn. It just seemed so odd and when I wasn't the only one questioning it. Then some other family got on there and friends about how he's "innocent" and he didn't do it. I don't care if he did or didn't. I mean if he did that's messed up and honestly the police aren't just going around finding people to make up child porn charges on. I just found it odd they were so upset that the news and sheriff said he was arrested.

 

[leslie82]

Apparently in finding his public FB page he posted after his alleged arrest that he was surprised about the child porn charges as the images were downloaded to a Dropbox app he deleted years ago...guess he didn't realize that you can't ever really delete anything. And how he's not that kind of person...of course not. No one who gets found with child porn is ever "that" person.