Justice System, Police, Courts rights taken

[rebel]

A family member is being detained in back of police vehicle for several hours about 6 hours he has been in the back of the police vehicle in the heat with the car off

 

[army judge]

A family member is being detained in back of police vehicle for several hours about 6 hours he has been in the back of the police vehicle in the heat with the car off

I suggest you contact a lawyer in your city or county.
You can also contact the local media. They love this kind of stuff.
You might also contact the chief of that department and inquire.

 

[CdwJava]

A family member is being detained in back of police vehicle for several hours about 6 hours he has been in the back of the police vehicle in the heat with the car off

Okay. How old is he? Was he harmed in any way? Why was he being detained there? Was he arrested? Released? Still there?

Do you have a question?

 

[army judge]

Okay. How old is he? Was he harmed in any way? Why was he being detained there? Was he arrested? Released? Still there?

Do you have a question?

I've never seen (or heard about) anyone being detained in the back seat of a police vehicle for six hours.
Its been my experience that police agencies want to take the arrested subject for booking and detention within 15-30 minutes (if not faster) of the arrest.

You know the difference, CDW, (so for the OP) arrest and detention are two very different things.

If the person was simply being detained (for any number of valid and lawful reasons), anything beyond 10-15 minutes would be highly irregular.

 

[CdwJava]

It is unusual, to be sure, but there are a number of circumstances under which a prolonged detention would be understandable and, perhaps, necessary.

If he were arrested, yeah, they'd probably want to get him out of there as soon as possible. But, sometimes that just isn't possible. Smaller agencies don't always have that luxury of a quick transport, and if there is a search warrant involved that can also add a wrinkle. While rare, I can conceive a number of scenarios to more than justify a 5 or even 6 hour detention.

Knowing more of the details as well as how the OP came to determine that his family member was actually detained for 6 hours in a patrol car would be nice.

 

[army judge]

It is unusual, to be sure, but there are a number of circumstances under which a prolonged detention would be understandable and, perhaps, necessary.

If he were arrested, yeah, they'd probably want to get him out of there as soon as possible. But, sometimes that just isn't possible. Smaller agencies don't always have that luxury of a quick transport, and if there is a search warrant involved that can also add a wrinkle. While rare, I can conceive a number of scenarios to more than justify a 5 or even 6 hour detention.

Knowing more of the details as well as how the OP came to determine that his family member was actually detained for 6 hours in a patrol car would be nice.

If they were serving a search warrant, as far as I know, the person(s) named on the warrant have the right to be present during the search and subsequent inventory of anything seized pursuant to the warrant (or by operation of law -aka- contraband, not specifically named in the warrant.)

I agree, more information would be nice.

I've seen a trend lately, and that is fewer people are returning to offer more information or clarification.

 

[CdwJava]

If they were serving a search warrant, as far as I know, the person(s) named on the warrant have the right to be present during the search and subsequent inventory of anything seized pursuant to the warrant (or by operation of law -aka- contraband, not specifically named in the warrant.)

That is not a requirement in CA. We need only leave a receipt. Not to mention I don't know if I'd be too comfortable with a suspect tagging along while I searched or did an inventory of items - the safety implications, and the potential evidenciary issues as a result of his/her presence could be of great concern.

And it is not entirely uncommon to detain people from in the residence for considerable time while a search warrant is written and signed. Though the longest I think I have stood by waiting for a warrant is about 4 hours, not six. But, I have also found that many people greatly overestimate the amount of time they were stopped/detained/held/whatever.

I agree, more information would be nice.

I've seen a trend lately, and that is fewer people are returning to offer more information or clarification.

It may be that people post hoping for fists in the air and a chorus of "You was wronged!" and when they don't get the obvious agreement, they move along ... or, they are simply afraid to provide details for one reason or another. Or, we are but one site among many that they post their complaint to and they forget about us. It would be nice if more came back.

 

[army judge]

That is not a requirement in CA. We need only leave a receipt. Not to mention I don't know if I'd be too comfortable with a suspect tagging along while I searched or did an inventory of items - the safety implications, and the potential evidenciary issues as a result of his/her presence could be of great concern.

And it is not entirely uncommon to detain people from in the residence for considerable time while a search warrant is written and signed. Though the longest I think I have stood by waiting for a warrant is about 4 hours, not six. But, I have also found that many people greatly overestimate the amount of time they were stopped/detained/held/whatever.


It may be that people post hoping for fists in the air and a chorus of "You was wronged!" and when they don't get the obvious agreement, they move along ... or, they are simply afraid to provide details for one reason or another. Or, we are but one site among many that they post their complaint to and they forget about us. It would be nice if more came back.

That explains it, then, CDW.
In Texas, and at least 10-12 other states that I know of, the suspect is allowed to observe the search.
It doesn't pose that much of a problem, having observed a few of these warrants being executed.
The officers search the person(s), one is allowed to observe, but he or she is handcuffed and always under teh watchful eye of one or two uniformed officers.

Its also the way the feds must do it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_41

I'm never surprised when I learn something.

Thanks for the exchange, sir.

 

[mightymoose]

I agree there isn't enough info to tell if anything inappropriate occurred.
It likely was a search warrant scenario where the person was detained while the warrant was obtained and served, and maybe arrested somewhere along the way.
The location where this occurred, especially if somewhere rural, could explain the unusual time, but unusual doesn't mean it is unlawful.

 

[CdwJava]

That explains it, then, CDW.
In Texas, and at least 10-12 other states that I know of, the suspect is allowed to observe the search.
It doesn't pose that much of a problem, having observed a few of these warrants being executed.
The officers search the person(s), one is allowed to observe, but he or she is handcuffed and always under teh watchful eye of one or two uniformed officers.

Out here there is no prohibition AGAINST allowing the property owner from observing the search or inventory, but, we do not have to and it is common practice NOT to. It is rare that I have had an owner accompany me on such a search and seizure, and then only when they are being cooperative and essentially pointing out where some of the evidence is located.

Unfortunately, where I work we wouldn't have the luxury of one or two officers to babysit while we also conducted a search and inventory. As MM pointed out with his reference to the detention time, rural locales have a unique problem with manpower.

Its also the way the feds must do it.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Hmmm ... the last time I worked with the FBI on a search warrant they had the defendant cuffed in another room while they seized his computers. he was informed of what was seized and a receipt presented to him, but he was not with the Agents when they seized the items in another room.

I'm never surprised when I learn something.

Thanks for the exchange, sir.

Ditto. It's also why I hesitate to say, "It's not done that way," here because not everyone does things the same way. Just as there are some posters (at least on other sites I am on) that will explain that they went to a magistrate to "swear out" an arrest warrant against a person and some posters will jump on them and say it doesn't work that way. Well, in some states, it can! And, then, there's Louisiana which can be a different legal world.

 

[KatDini]

Out here there is no prohibition AGAINST allowing the property owner from observing the search or inventory, but, we do not have to and it is common practice NOT to. It is rare that I have had an owner accompany me on such a search and seizure, and then only when they are being cooperative and essentially pointing out where some of the evidence is located.

Unfortunately, where I work we wouldn't have the luxury of one or two officers to babysit while we also conducted a search and inventory. As MM pointed out with his reference to the detention time, rural locales have a unique problem with manpower.


Interesting, I didn't know that. Hmmm ... the last time I worked with the FBI on a search warrant they had the defendant cuffed in another room while they seized his computers. he was informed of what was seized and a receipt presented to him, but he was not with the Agents when they seized the items in another room.


Ditto. It's also why I hesitate to say, "It's not done that way," here because not everyone does things the same way. Just as there are some posters (at least on other sites I am on) that will explain that they went to a magistrate to "swear out" an arrest warrant against a person and some posters will jump on them and say it doesn't work that way. Well, in some states, it can! And, then, there's Louisiana which can be a different legal world.

Louisiana's laws are based on Napoleonic code instead of English common law like everyone else.

 

[CdwJava]

Louisiana's laws are based on Napoleonic code instead of English common law like everyone else.

Yep! Hence the peculiar twists. And, for some reason, the perception of rife corruption ...