"detained for questioning" in Guthrie case?

[Jersey Devil]

CNn and other news sources says a man has been "detained for questioning" but not arrested. But there is no such thing as putting someone in custody to answer questions. I have been a lawyer for 55 years and that included a lot of criminal law and have no idea what they are talking about. Unless someone voluntarily submits to questioning there is no way they can be held in custody unless they are arrested.

[Skittles]

1. thank you

love it when DU's legal eagles chime in

[iluvtennis]

31. Me too. n/t

[Greywing]

2. Are the news sources getting this info from Kash Patel?

Would explain a lot

[Cha]

4. Yeah, ol Cash crossed my mind, too.

[KPN]

33. Bingo. The Keystone Cops at work! In an autocratic

government no less. Who woulda thunk?

[Cha]

3. Mahalo, Jersey Devil..

[Rebl2]

5. Saw it

on NBC about 30 minutes ago. Broke into Olympic coverage to report it.

[RockRaven]

6. Let's not pretend like everything always goes by the book.

They can also keep somebody in custody for reason X when the issue the cops and public are really interested in is issue Y.

[Jersey Devil]

13. Sure, but there must be an arrest

Of course they could arrest someone for trespassing when they really want to ask about another crime, but they cannot "detain" someone without arresting them for something.

[Maru Kitteh]

7. Did they send ICE? It would be on par for this FBI & WH to totally fuck over

the entire case and end up with a broken pile of shit just so they could get some publicity they think is a “win” for them right now.

More plausible: They keep saying he has not been “charged.” I haven’t yet heard nobody has been arrested. Guessing he’s arrested/detained on some other charge and that gives authorities some time and wiggle room?

Whatcha think?

[ShazzieB]

32. Could be.

Sounds like a plausible scenario to me!

[CanonRay]

8. It's Kash's Law!

Forget all that law school shit.

[montanacowboy]

9. I call bullshit

If this person of interest is "in custody" then a charge should be made, otherwise he can walk out the door and he damn well should

[TommyT139]

12. NBC interrupted Olympics coverage

so that lends some validity, to me.

Kashyap Patel had "helped" earlier today in putting out the video from the authorities.

[Jersey Devil]

14. Something about this news report is screwy

You are absolutely right

[KPN]

34. Absolutely!

[TommyT139]

10. Is it the case

...where someone can be held for questions, if there is a clock that starts ticking from the time when they do make the arrest?

[gab13by13]

16. That's a TV show 48 hours

[TommyT139]

23. See comment 22. "Quarles exception"

[Jersey Devil]

29. You can't detain someone simply because a life is at risk

Miranda is a separate issue that determines whether a statement can be used in court, not whether someone can be detained without arrest.

[Jersey Devil]

17. There is no provision to hold someone to answer questions

If police ask someone to answer questions and they say no then they have to let him go or arrest him immediately. Eal police work isn't like the tv show Colombo.

[TommyT139]

24. See comment 22: "Quarles exception"

[Prairie Gates]

20. You cannot be "held for questioning" - it's not a thing at all

You are either under arrest or you are not. You cannot be forced to answer questions. That's the first thing: "You have the right to remain silent..."

[TommyT139]

22. Talking head on MSNBC

As it happens there is an exception: when there is a life in danger, police can question without an arrest and without Mirandizing. He referred to it as a "Quarrels exception" (spelling from the closed captioning).

Update: "Quarles exception"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Quarles

"New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding the public safety exception to the normal Fifth Amendment requirements of the Miranda warning."

[Jersey Devil]

27. Quarles is an exception to Miranda warnings, not the requirement to arrest someone for questioning

Quarles really is irrelevant

[TommyT139]

28. That's not what I said

I didn't say there was a requirement to arrest. But MSNBC had someone on who had been on the law side, and that was his hypothesis.

We'll likely know more tomorrow, for better or worse. 🤞🏻

[Johnny2X2X]

11. Hopefully this is a good sign

At the same time someone was detained, a Life Flight was sent to the same remote area.

https://www.flightradar24.com/N544AM/3e4799a5

[Sogo]

25. Could you explain what we're supposed to be looking at on your link?

It looks like a home page explaining what the site is....

[mopinko]

15. meh. i was once 'detained' but not arrested by chgo cops.

told me twice i wasnt under arrest, but i was sure nuff cuffed and put in a cruiser, and cuffed to the bench at the station for 2 hrs. it was sort of for my own protection, i think, cuz i truly pissed off a few neighbors.
i was given a misdemeanor ticket.

i suppose i cd have argued, but like i said, i was safer in cuffs.

[Jersey Devil]

18. You were arrested

Any time you are "detained" it means you have been arrested. But they would not do that without an underlying charge, which in your case was the misdemeanor.

[mopinko]

19. oh i know. i was either arrested or illegally detained. but they insisted i wasnt under arrest.

this is chgo. cops get away w all kinds of bullshit. i wasnt printed or anything, just given a ticket.
i admitted my ‘crime’. it was almost funny. the reason it took so long is they had to figure out what my actual crime was, what the specific law/section/etc. no 1 cd find ‘the code’.
it was damage to property, but it was too piddly to b a felony.

[Jersey Devil]

30. Spunds like they made something up to cover their asses

If they did not charge you after hauling you to the station house you could have sued them for illeal detention.

[Ilikepurple]

35. Why would you conflate the ability to sue or the right to a remedy with "cannot be detained without arrest"

Cannot legally be detained except briefly without arrest is an accurate but different proposition. Yes, there are legal protections and people are often confused by inaccurate portrayals police procedurals in popular culture, but the force of those legal protections kick in after the fact. In your rush to provide a lesson in law you seem to have ignored realities that many have faced. Making up something to cover their asses is not a unique law enforcement event. Often people are happy just to be let go or accepting of a minor charge. As to the existence of remedies, not all of us are as comfortable going to court or as confident in the system as a criminal attorney. I think giving legal advice, teaching law, and discussing the real world effects of laws require different approaches, but maybe that’s just me.

[mopinko]

36. i talked to a lawyer.

qualified immunity.

[Ilikepurple]

21. Obviously unlawful detention exists. If there was no such thing, we wouldn't need its associated due process right.

Also, incomplete or mistaken info is sometimes leaked. You also know that someone can be arrested but not charged for a term of hours depending off the jurisdiction. I’m leaning towards the initial information coming from an individual who confused not yet charged with not yet arrested? Also, from what I’ve read, I’m not even sure the person wasn’t detained and questioned during a Terry Stop. It’s really hard to say with Patel’s FBI involved as this case is more interesting to a great deal of Americans than the Epstein info drops or anything else going on in this country. Keeping it in the headlines is a boon to this administration and its republican brethren. Of course it will also be a boon if they actually find Nancy and convict those responsible, but I have a hard time Patel’s media presence has justice as its teleological end. Of course, I’m hoping for the best outcome for Nancy Guthrie and her family.

[Jersey Devil]

37. Terry stop?

A brief Terry stop is not in the same ballpark with hauling someone to police headquarters and detaining them. Since you brought it up, just what jurisdictions allow police to detain someone without charging them?

[Frasier Balzov]

26. They're probably detaining him because he's not a citizen.

I can see how this is unfolding to bring the crisis of illegal immigration into prominence in the Guthrie case.

[Jersey Devil]

38. That could be the answer

It's the only explanation I have heard that would justify holding him without charging him with something.

[Melon]

39. I think this is cartel activity

This kind of kidnapping for ransom happens all the time in Mexico.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Police release man detained in connection to Nancy Guthrie disappearance

Police have released a man hours after they detained him in connection to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of US news anchor Savannah Guthrie, CBS News, the BBC's US partner, has reported.

After taking the man into custody at a traffic stop, police searched his home in Rio Rico, south of Tucson, Arizona, sources familiar with the investigation told CBS News.

After his release, the man, identified only as Carlos, told reporters outside his home that he did not know who Nancy Guthrie was. "I don't follow the news," he said.
...
Carlos, reportedly a deliveryman, said he had been driving around and noticed authorities were following him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5l4yy3ezmo

[malaise]

41. So you're suggesting that Kash et al

bungled this one too?

[cally]

42. I did not know this

I appreciate the information.