In Nevada police can detain a "suspect" for an hour without cause. In this day and age of computer networked police cars, cell phones, etc, is an hour too long? Shouldn't cops be able to establish cause for arrest within, say, 30 minutes?
119143
Hello nv:\n\n72 hours without formal charges - no longer.\n\nOf course, all of it is too long, but that's the law.\n\nexcon
215277
He was probably doing something to make the police think he had a weapon, so I'm sure he's not completely innocent. But possession of a non-lethal weapon is a misdemeanor. If he does any jail time at all, which I doubt, he'll get 30 days in county. More than likely, he'll probably have to pay a fine and/or do community service.
125949
In CA , if the police officer can develop probable cause, he can search your car. This was put in place due to the mobility of vehicles. They can simply drive away before you can get a search warrant.\n\nThe simplest example is the smell of pot. If the officer smells it, he can search anywhere in the car where the pot might be. Anywhere. \n\nAnother example is the plain sight rule. If the officer sees contraband in plain sight he can seize it and search your car for more. Anything else reasonably found during the search is also legally obtained.\n\nI don't know where the other posters got their information, but whether or not you are a minor has no bearing.\n\nAs for the cocaine issue, what crime did the driver get charged with? What are you talking about? If a passenger has drugs on them, it is possible that the driver could be charged for transportation of drugs. As for claiming they didn't know about the drugs, would it surprise you to know that people lie to the police??
280975
I don't know much about booking processes in New York, but I would go to your local precinct and inquire about your friends where abouts and about how to bail him out.  Like I said I am not sure about the NYPD, but you could always check out their website (http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/).  I find it odd he texted you as he was getting arrested, most cops won't take that and will confiscate the phone, I would.\n\nNow that I think about it, since this was yesterday, he's probably made bail by now, or at least made arraignment, depending on what time he was arrested.
428438
In North Carolina the staute of limitation is 7 years. Call the IL sheriff's dept or a majestrate and just ask them.
3629
Usually a "failure to appear" warrant will not result in jail time unless you have many prior failure to appears and they can show a pattern or if the failure to appear is on a serious felony crime or a crime in witch you are out on bail. Now either way it will be better for you to turn yourself in. However do not turn yourself in on a friday as this may result in sitting in jail until monday. Also I would call the court clerk and try to reschedule an appearance before I turned my self in to show that you did make an effort. Oh yea it is also bad if the appearance is for sentencing. They really frown on ditching accountability. In addition by turning yourself in you avoid all the hassle of having your car towed away and impounded if you are pulled over while drving. Don't panic! Especially if this is a minor offense. The courts and jails are so jammed up with truly bad people they have no time or room to lock people up for minor offenses. Even if it seems really bad to you. I assume that it is minor because you don't seem to have much experience dealing with the law. I personally have been pulled over with a valid warrant and the officer just cited and released me. However I have also seen people get hauled in friday night and have to wait til the offices open up Monday morning to be released with nothing more than a new court date. Anyways good luck and stay low until Monday.
501600
If you see a felony being committed you are allowed to detain a suspect until polices arrives.\nAlso you can detain any suspect if police officer asks you for help.
127867
It depends on where you live, i think. Where I live there is no limit on time. You can report someone, even decades later.
84581
I am probably in the same camp as everyone else, but would want some clarification.\n\nMust people here seem to have taken the position the truck was being backed towards the officer, but that's not what was stated in the question.  The question says the truck "starts coming back towards the cop," which does not necessarily imply that it was being *driven* back...it might have been rolling because the drunk took his foot off the brake.  I don't know that I think it makes a difference, though...it just would be nice if we knew that the truck was indeed being intentionally used as a dangerous weapon (like maybe the engine racing, the backup lights coming on, etc).\n\nAnd I wonder if you're curious about the innocent passenger who was killed, also.  Was his death justified?  No.  But it was accidental, and I don't think what I've read here makes me think it was criminally negligent. \n\nAn interesting question.  I wonder what makes you ask?\n\nEdit 3.20.06:\n\nFor those who say the cop should have (basically) run away, or cowered and waited for backup, here's the law in California, and I'd guess in most states:\n\n835a.  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.\n   A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.\n\nI still have my concerns with the whole thing, but to suggest the police should have to run (or hide) from criminals is just plain ridiculous.  You don't want to live in a society that tells its cops they have to back off when they're trying to do their job.
433700
That's a huge fish story.....true or not. My first question comes from the first arrest as why you didn't go down to the local police station and have your vehicle checked by a drug dog to avoid the second incident. I then wonder why, after the first arrest, you didn't head to your local doctor and get a blood test proving you were not using. This doesn't appear to have been done for the second arrest either. So, what you are left with is a mountain of evidence against you. Considering these are both felonies, any deferment, agreement, plea deal you make will instantly make you a convicted felon, a label that lasts a lifetime. Tread carefully grasshopper, you are in very dangerous waters.
491845
There are plenty of errors on here.  Cops do not have to have a warrant to arrest you nor do they have to read you your rights if they are only arresting you.  More importantly, the biggest error is the failure of people asking legal questions to include the jurisdiction they are in.  Apparently many people on here believe that law is universal and exactly the same in all places which it is not.  It drives me nuts when people don't put the jurisidiction in the question.  Thanks for giving me a place to vent!
222578
Was the arrest based on a complaint when you were out in public? It would seem that your home would be private. If you were not in public, you might report this arrest to the ACLU. They are short-staffed, but at least you would be on record. I won't let a cop in my house without a warrant, but it's a little late for that to help you now.
366585
You must life in a crappy neighborhood, where I live the police would be there ten minutes after it started. They should stop at 10:00 at least so people can sleep, maybe they will turn it down and chill then.
330454
You would walk up to them and tell them they are under arrest and they have to wait there for a police officer.\n\nBasicly you don't,  you call the police and inform of them of the crime.  In GA for example you can also file a complaint with the circuit court and ask for a warrant to be issued for a crime.\n\nYou risk danger of getting arrested yourself for illegal detaining someone,  you get hurt since the other personal normally does not want to be arested.
123461
Take this example:\nYou get pulled over in YOUR car, with a bunch of your friends.  Police decide they have reasonable cause to search your vehicle, and since you know you've done nothing wrong, and there's nothing bad in the car, why wait for a warrant?  What you don't know, is that one of your friends just dropped a bag of some illicit drug under one of your car seats.  What happens?  (Well, in all actuality, they may just make off with it and everybody gets let off b/c they don't feel like dealing with it for a little 20 sack & 5 people, but thats not the point here.)  Everybody gets searched, some or all get arrested, your car goes to impound, and SOMEBODY is going to get charged with possession.  Guess what else?  The dope is in YOUR car, and they can, therefore, charge you with possession of that drug BECAUSE it was in your car, and so were you (and so was everybody else).  \nMake sense?\n\nA more simple example:  You're 12.  Your parents find cigarettes in your room.  You exclaim that they're not yours, and you were holding them for a friend.  Who gets grounded?  The person in possession, NOT the person whose cigs they actually are.
437540
Actually, the police are required to make a reasonable effort to serve the warrant at the address recorded on the warrant and within the amount of time prescribed by law (often one year).  This effort may consist of nothing more than knocking on the door receiving no answer, and leaving.  This process is called "due diligence" and is required to keept the warrant active and valid.\n\nOnce due diligence has been performed, and unless the wanted person has warrants for crimes of violence, presents a threat to the community, etc., it is unlikely that any additional efforts will be made to serve the warrant.  Where I work, we all know that the people who don't take car e of their cases and end up with warrants will eventually turn up and get arrested.
631645
Unfortunately, we don't have your friend's information to go on here, so this is going to be a guess.\n\nDepending on what the alleged harassment was over the phone, it could have been a felony.  Felonies typically allow for arrests under circumstances that are a little less "demanding" than lesser crimes, so the police may have taken advantage of that extra latitude.\n\nI can see a few possibilities:\n\nYour friend admitted to making the call (not admitted to making harassing statements - though maybe she did - just admitted to making the call).  People admit to things like this all the time, without realizing they're putting themselves that much closer to the crime.\n\nThere was a witness to the call (you said she borrowed the phone from her boyfriend, so he might have told the police something about the call) or there was someone at the other end who recognized your friend's voice and/or heard what was said.\n\nThe police might have checked the boyfriend's cell phone and found a call from his phone was made to the other phone (cell phones have call logs, right?).\n\nAnd those things could have very well added up to probable cause to make a felony arrest.  It's not a great case, in my opinion, but it could certainly be enough for an arrest.  \n\nIt's also possible the police might even have better evidence than what I thought of, and that would only make the arrest even more appropriate\n\nAnd it's worth pointing out that he said/she said situations like this happen all the time, and arrests are made without "proof" all the time.  The standard for making an arrest isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it's probable cause...which is considerably less than beyond a reasonable doubt.  So while taking one person's word about something might be enough for an arrest, it's probably going to be nowhere near enough for a conviction in the absence of any other information.