Difference in "arrest" and "detention"

[Willowdared]

They may also be able to put a MisID comment on the warrant.

Since this person shares the same name, you might contact the court and ask them if this is possible.

[me again]

If a police officer has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, or that a person is wanted, that person MAY be detained and is NOT free to leave. If I have to drive the person to the complaintant for a show-up, drive the complaintant to the suspect or transport the suspect to the precinct for further investigation then so be it.

FACTS: The poster admits there is a warrant in his name and he is from the issuing jurisdiction.

Without further information it is reasonable to transport the suspect back to the station where further information can be received such as a mugshot of the offender. Scars, marks, tattoos - or any other information that the dispatcher did not have access to. After investigation the suspect (hughb) was released.

There is no indication that the police did anything improper or illegal. There is NO civil case. I'm suprised that anyone, especially a "Verified LEO" would indicate to the poster that he should sue the police dept!

Arrest laws obviously vary from state-to-state and I'm not qualified to give an opinion about California. However, the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that if we place someone in our squad car and if he is not free to leave, then we have arrested him. The original poster indicated that he was placed in a police vehicle and he was transported downtown and, thus, he was clearly not allowed to leave by Florida's standards and, consequently, it would be considered a formal arrest in my state.

No, I did not suggest that the poster should sue the arresting officer. Furthermore, I told him that if he did sue, he might be able to win a civil lawsuit, but since no malace was involved on the officer's part, it is highly unlikely that he would be awarded much money. If neglegent training or neglegent supervision are involved, then that may compound the situation. It certainly doesn't appear to be an egregious state or federal 1983 violation (do your own research on federal 1983 civil rights violations).

I'm just trying to stick to the facts and am not trying to allow bravado or emotionalism to enter the picture.

[Jks9199]

One other thing...

A letter itself isn't going to stop me. In VA, victims of identity theft can get some sort of official letter saying they're an ID theft victim. If I get a wanted hit on you, and you give that letter to me -- I'll probably ask for a physical description before I hook you. But if dispatch can't get that to me, you might find yourself in the backseat of a cruiser again. (Actually, I try to get a physical anyway; the guy who teaches radio/NCIC stuff at our academy does a dramatic demo with each academy class. He runs everyone until he finds someone who gets a hit by name... Often, it's an alias, and often the physical is nowhere even close. Kind of stresses why you don't arrest solely on the hit, but do some basic confirmation.)