Illegal Arrest?

[BlackPeaceStone]

What is the name of your state? IL

Given the following situation am I correct that an arrest under 725 ILCS 5/107-4(a) (3) could not be substantiated? I am only interested in an arrest under this particular section.

On July 12 Hickory Hills Police Officers were investigating a Residential Burglary that occurred in their town. Only July 14, 2006 Defendant A was arrested at his job in a private building in Oak Brook, Du Page County Illinois by officers from Hickory Hills, Cook County, Illinois. Officers AAA and BBB were in a private building and did not have permission to enter Defendant A’s private office. Officers AAA and BBB also did not detain or temporarily question Defendant A in the vicinity where Defendant A was stopped. Defendant A was stopped in Oak Brook, Dupage County, Illinois and brought back to Hickory Hills, Cook County, Illinois which is clearly not in the same vicinity where he was stopped. The Hickory Hills police department could have elected for the Oak Brook police department to detain him at one of there police facilities but they chose to ignore the law and therefore a arrest under 107-4(a-3)(1) can not be substantiated. The investigation of the residential burglary was still in progress and they only evidence linking Defendant to a crime was information received from Accuser X. The person named by Accuser X and suspected of the residential burglary was Ben. Accuser X did not name Defendant A (his real name) as the person who committed the residential burglary; The conduct of Defendant A prior to his arrest was such as would not reasonably be interpreted by the arresting officers as constituting probable cause that the Defendant A had committed or was about to commit a crime. The Petitioner was arrested based on witness accounts and the determination that he may have been involved in a crime. However, the witness never mentioned his name, only knew of a “Ben” and the arresting officers had no other information that may link Defendant A to the name “Ben.”

The Hickory Hills Police Department did not have a warrant for Defendant A’s arrest and did not observe Defendant commit a crime or have reasonable grounds to believe that he had committed a crime. 725 ILCS 5/107-2(West 2003). If the Hickory Hills Police Department had evidence of Defendant A’s involvement in any crime, they would have charged him on July 15 or 16, 2006; instead, they detained Defendant A for 54 hours in the police station and charged him on July 17, 2006, after he allegedly made a statement, and other witnesses were interviewed.

The state will try to argue they had probable cause to make the arrest because the Accuser X provided the police with information about Defendant A’s involvement in a residential burglary. The state will not have a substantial legal basis for concluding that probable cause existed. Defendant A’s alleged involvement in a residential burglary was obviously nothing more than a suspicion. See Henry, 361 U.S. at 101, 4 L. Ed. 2d at 138, 80 S. Ct. at 170. (rumors, reports, suspicion or strong reason to suspect are not adequate to support a warrant for arrest). The person named by Accuser X and suspected of the residential burglary was Ben. Accuser X did not name Defendant A as the person who committed the residential burglary; therefore, the police did not have probable cause to believe that Defendant A committed a crime because Accuser X named Ben as the person who committed the residential burglary.





(725 ILCS 5/107-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-4)
Sec. 107-4. Arrest by peace officer from other jurisdiction.
(a-3) Any peace officer employed by a law enforcement agency of this State may conduct temporary questioning pursuant to Section 107-14 of this Code and may make arrests in any jurisdiction within this State if: (1) the officer is engaged in the investigation of an offense that occurred in the officer's primary jurisdiction and the temporary questioning is conducted or the arrest is made pursuant to that investigation; or (2) the officer, while on duty as a peace officer, becomes personally aware of the immediate commission of a felony or misdemeanor violation of the laws of this State; or (3) the officer, while on duty as a peace officer, is requested by an appropriate State or local law enforcement official to render aid or assistance to the requesting law enforcement agency that is outside the officer's primary jurisdiction. While acting pursuant to this subsection, an officer has the same authority as within his or her own jurisdiction.


(725 ILCS 5/107-14) (from Ch. 38, par. 107-14)
Sec. 107-14. Temporary questioning without arrest.
A peace officer, after having identified himself as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably infers from the circumstances that the person is committing, is about to commit or has committed an offense as defined in Section 102-15 of this Code, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions. Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped.

[tranquility]

Rule #1, always read the case before citing it. Always. Tip for the day #1, if you don't cite the case earlier, a page cite is worthless.

For an excellent example of the question you are asking regarding what the law is on probable cause, see: Maryland v. Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366. Then come back and list in simple english what probable cause is when refering to a particular person rather than if a crime was committed.

Question answer edit:

Tip for the day #2:
Anytime someone says you did it, there's probable cause. (Assuming the person is not anonymous and knows the facts of the crime.)

Edit edit:
I was a little flippant in my tip #2. Like any probable cause question, it depends on the totality of the circumstances. The police knowledge of the person making the statement's veracity (upstanding member of the community, prior interactions, etc.) and that person's knowledge of the crime's facts are only a couple, but major, factors going into that determination. This means PC tends to be a question of fact and not law. It is extremely rare to find a factual scenario that, as a matter of law, is not probable cause.

[BlackPeaceStone]

In Maryland v. Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366 a consent was granted. "We think it an entirely reasonable inference from these facts that any or all three of the occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the cocaine. Thus a reasonable officer could conclude that there was probable cause to believe Pringle committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly."

In the case at bar, no consent was granted, the officers did not witness Defendant committ a crime. The only evidence was the Accuser naming "Ben" and not naming "Defendant A". There was no evidence to link Ben and Defendant A.

Also I have a question about "the arrest is made pursuant to that investigation" does this mean that the investigation must be complete before the arrest can be made?

I am only interested in a arrest under 725 ILCS 5/107-4(a) (3) because my attorney and I have other arguments for arrests under different sections.

In order to satisfy 5/107-4 does 5/107-14 need to be satisfied first? If so then "Such detention and temporary questioning will be conducted in the vicinity of where the person was stopped." was not satisfied.

[tranquility]

The case was illustriative for the discussion on what probable cause was in determining who was an arrestable suspect when the crime was patent. Not that the facts were similar. I assume the crime at the core of your case is patent. What is required for probable cause to arrest you as a suspect in that crime?

The statutes mentioned seem only to memoralize the state of the law through decision. Look to the basics and find your answer--which to me is clearly yes. They can arrest when they did. If you or your attorney feel they give greater rights than the basic theories of criminal proceedure, knock yourselves out. But, I don't see it.

[BlackPeaceStone]

If thats the case then when would you ever need a arrest warrant? If under this clause you can arrest anyone if you have probable cause. When and why would you need a arrest warrant? If you have the same authority to arrest someone in all cases without one.

[tranquility]

The question is broad and can flow between the federal and the state. A few reasons which come to mind:

1. It gives an officer other than the officer who has direct knowledge of probable cause to arrest.

2. It gives an officer the right to enter the residence of another to make an arrest.

3. It gives an officer the right to arrest for a stale misdemeanor.

4. It gives an officer the right to arrest for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence.

[CdwJava]

In addition to Tranq's list, there are also other considerations ...

Likelihood of the crime continuing if the suspect remained at large.

The arrest would have to be timely from the time probable cause was established to the arrest. In this case we have two days that had passed, so that would seem to be timely. Had they waited a month, I'd say an arrest on probable cause would be out the window. In some counties out here it could take up to a month to get an arrest warrant so they rely on probable cause sometimes as long as 30 days from the initial report. In my county the threshold is about 72 hours as we can walk a warrant through the process with some ease.

A warrant is "safer" than a probable cause arrest and generally absolves the officer of liability for a false arrest as a DA and a judge have already signed off on the probable cause.

- Carl

[tranquility]

I'm not sure about Carl's concept of time regarding probable cause. Here, we're talking about a felony. While there may be some policy reasons not to arrest for a felony with a "stale" probable cause, I don't know of any legal reasons off the top of my head.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure. Carl, do you have a cite?

[CdwJava]

I don't know the legal theory behind it, off hand. But for all practical purposes the courts and DA's in three counties I have worked in essentially have determined that probable cause is exhausted if there has been sufficient time to seek an arrest warrant. In the counties where a warrant took up to 30 days, they would accept that length of time for probable cause arrests provided some due diligence was demonstrated. In my current counter, the DA and the presiding judge have agreed that 3 court days is sufficient.

I'm sure there is some refining case law behind it, but that's something I'll leave to the judges and the DAs.

- Carl