Timeline for Is a traffic ticket an arrest?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2021 at 22:07 | comment | added | Viktor | @phoog upon review of my past answer and your comments, I see your point now. I guess California could define an arrest to mean something completely different but because of the Right to Truth in Evidence rules in California I do not think that is likely or even possible until that constitutional provision is changed or the California legislature acts. | |
| Feb 7, 2019 at 18:45 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @DaveD This is merely proof that the state trooper's vocabulary and training in law enforcement relevant law is lacking (similarly, law enforcement also routinely describes couples as being in "common law marriages" when they are not). He called it an arrest but it actually wasn't one. The correct legal terminology for what the trooper did is a "Terry stop" or more colloquially a "traffic stop", which is distinct from an arrest. Rule of thumb, if you are not in handcuffs and not locked into a vehicle or room, you are probably not under arrest for purposes of constitutional criminal procedure. | |
| Dec 22, 2015 at 7:54 | vote | accept | Alexanne Senger | ||
| Nov 28, 2015 at 2:47 | comment | added | Dave D | I was pulled over for speeding in Delaware (after Terry, before Knowles) and the state trooper stated, "I'm placing you under arrest for speeding." He wrote the ticket, I signed it and I was on my way. I read the citation above to say that a traffic stop is somewhere between a Terry stop and an arrest and doesn't fit either definition cleanly. Rodriguez wasn't really designed to define "arrest" so much as declare that stopping someone for a traffic offense does not give license to investigate other crimes absent specific cause. In either case, you're not free to go. | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 20:45 | comment | added | phoog | No, not at all. Suppose California says that "apple" denotes citrus sinensis. Suppose further that the SC has declared apples to be illegal under federal law. Because the SC was referring to malus domestica when it wrote "apple," the ban does not apply to citrus sinensis simply because California uses the word "apple" to refer to that species of fruit. If what you say were true, states could, for example, declare that what the SC calls an arrest is actually known as a "frob" and therefore that SC jurisprudence concerning arrests does not apply (e.g., probable cause). | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 18:28 | comment | added | Viktor | @phoog please cite some authority. I recommend starting with law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest Arrests are highly scrutinized under the constitution. Considering that the constitution references arrests in its text! Hypothetically let's say a state may define an arrest to mean something different, the same way a state may legislate that under the law that apples are now called oranges, the actions that can be taken pursuant to that "arrest" will be greatly reduced. I suggest you research the 14th amendment and its effects on the states. This is my last reply and we may agree to disagree. | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 16:01 | comment | added | phoog | No, you are wrong. California can use the word "arrest" such that the term would have be "arrest or detain" in federal law. The hypothetical fact that California uses "arrest" to include detentions as defined by the SC does not change the rules for detention or arrest. Your assertion about the suppression of evidence does not follow. Did you read the answer to the linked question? It was my comment to that answer that sparked this question. The question could be rephrased as "does the word 'arrest' in CA statute include traffic stops?" Federal case law has no bearing on that. | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 15:51 | comment | added | Viktor | @phoog you are wrong. Take a look at case law. The Supreme Court has defined what an arrest is and what level of evidence an officer must have to perform an arrest. If the officer arrests someone and conducts a search pursuant to that arrest and finds evidence, based on your above definition, the evidence will be suppressed. | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 15:46 | comment | added | phoog | No, it can't. If the state defines "arrest" so that it covers a police officer asking someone on the street a question, that doesn't mean, in combination with supreme court decisions, that the officer needs probable cause to ask the question. | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 15:42 | comment | added | Viktor | @phoog yes it can. The issue was fourth amendment suppression of evidence. The fourth amendment is applied to the states via the fourteenth amendment. This case law is binding on states as well. | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 15:40 | comment | added | phoog | This means that a traffic stop is not an "arrest" as that term is used in federal law. This question is about the term "arrest" as used in the California law cited above. A Supreme Court ruling can't change the definition of a term used in state law; it's entirely possible for a state to define the term "arrest" to denote something that federal court system says isn't an arrest. | |
| Nov 27, 2015 at 14:53 | history | answered | Viktor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |