love it when DU's legal eagles chime in

Would explain a lot

government no less. Who woulda thunk?

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

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

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.

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?

Sounds like a plausible scenario to me!

Forget all that law school shit.

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

so that lends some validity, to me.

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

You are absolutely right

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

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

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.

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..."

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."

Quarles really is irrelevant

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. 🤞🏻

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

qualified immunity.

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.

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?

I was It certainly was not clear upon the initial reports I read that they hauled anyone anywhere. This NBC headline is just one example “ Pima County Sheriff detained subject in Guthrie case during traffic stop.” I could not find an article that implied they took them to the station until later, so I left that possibility open. I also thought it was possible that he was not being detained in a legal sense only that agreed to be questioned. I was just trying to make sense of the headlines and articles as you were. I had the understanding that police can make a warrantless arrest based on probable cause and then there is a 24-72 hour grace period for prosecutors to charge the person. Arrested without being. Harmed is a thing I believe. Are you saying being arrested and released without charges is not a thing? I’m not sure if I was unclear or you just have a problem taking off your adversarial hat here. On further thought, maybe I have that problem too.

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

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

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

bungled this one too?

I appreciate the information.