ARREST: To stop; to seize; to deprive one of his liberty by virtue of legal authority.

Whether a detention was an investigatory stop or a full-blown arrest is a question of law subject to de novo review.  Courts have stated that in determining when a person is arrested, we ask at what point, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed he [she] was not free to leave Strictly speaking, this particular formulation of the standard for determining whether an arrest has occurred is not a completely accurate statement of the law, for an investigatory stop is not an arrest despite the fact that a reasonable person would not believe he is free to leave  This is so because even during an investigative stop, which by definition is not an arrest, it would be clear to a reasonable person so detained that he was not free to leave during the stop.

It appears that some Court's unfortunate articulation of the reasonable person/free to leave test for judging arrests resulted from collapsing the Royer-Mendenhall standard for judging when a seizure occurs into the test governing when such a seizure qualifies as an arrest.

Of course, whether a seizure has occurred and whether an arrest has occurred are separate and distinct inquiries, the latter class of detention being a subset of the former.

So, what is the appropriate standard for judging whether an arrest has occurred, as opposed to a mere investigatory stop? No brightline test separates an investigatory stop from an arrest, and that consequently the question whether a seizure constitutes an arrest is one that one can only be answered on a case-by-case basis in light of all the circumstances

An arrest occurs whenever a reasonable person would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree ordinarily associated with a formal arrest (a person is in custody for Miranda purposes when he is subjected to the restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest).

The inquiry is simply whether a reasonable person would have believed that he was under arrest (as that term is commonly understood) at the time of his seizure. Thus, if the circumstances surrounding a seizure would be viewed by a reasonable person as indicating that he would not be free to leave for an indefinite, or for an extended period of time, then that person has been placed under arrest. Stopping differs from an arrest not in the incompleteness of the seizure but in the brevity of it.

It is not the actual length of time of the detention that is the key here, but, rather, whether a reasonable person would perceive, while detained, on the basis of the totality of the circumstances (including, very importantly, the actions and representations of the seizing officers, that he is under arrest as commonly understood, in that he is likely to be detained for an indefinite or extended period of time.

An arrest can occur in an instant. An officer can put his hand on a person and state that that person is under arrest  An arrest can also occur in an instant even if the officers do not use that magic phrase.

It may be argued that the standard of a reasonable person believing he is under arrest will have its own difficulties, but the common man or woman in this country, using common sense, understands this concept. Ordinarily, when a highway patrolman stops and detains a person for speeding, that person would not reasonably believe he or she is under arrest (police ordering an occupant out of a vehicle following a traffic stop does not result in an arrest).

Similarly, if an officer stops a person on the street and states, just want to ask you some questions, that person would not, at that moment, reasonably believe that he or she is under arrest. Such an encounter is not even a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

But if an armed officer, wearing a raid jacket, violently seizes a person, forces him to the ground, and places him in handcuffs (or other restraints), would not that person reasonably believe he was under arrest? Of course he would. The difference is that in the first two examples the totality of the circumstances would lead the person detained to believe that his detention would be brief, whereas in the last example there is nothing in the situational context that would lead him to reasonable believe that he would soon or very shortly be permitted to leave and go on about his business.

An arrest does not necessarily and automatically result only from the use of physical restraints  or only from the officers' show of force (e.g. drawing their weapons) it cannot be seriously doubted that these factors, when used in conjunction, would ordinarily lead a reasonable person to believe that he is under arrest, especially when such a seizure follows directly on the heels of an official directive, or even a request,& to leave the sanctuary of one's home.

Under one view, an arrest under the Fourth Amendment, would only occur when the police recite the magic words, "you are now under arrest", or perhaps after the passage of a considerable period of time. Such a result is plainly inconsistent with the precedent of the Supreme Court, Dana v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 212-13 ('79) (whether a suspect was told that he was under arrest is irrelevant to determining whether he was, in fact, under arrest).

When it is clear that the officers have resorted to such restrictive seizures of individuals (handcuffing them at gunpoint) in order to investigate their suspicions of prior criminal activity, the detention of the suspects is sufficiently serious to constitute an arrest requiring probable cause, even if the officers did not formally advise the suspects that they were under arrest (or even if the officers did not intend to effect a normal arrest).

Arrest In Civil Cases, Practice. An arrest is the apprehension of a person by virtue of a lawful authority, to answer the demand against him in a civil action.

To constitute an arrest, no actual force or manual touching of the body is requisite; it is sufficient if the party be within the power of the officer, and submit to the arrest. Barewords, however, will not make an arrest, without laying the person or otherwise confining him. It is necessarily an assault, but not necessarily a battery.

Arrests are made either on mense or final process. An arrest on mense process is made in order that the defendant shall answer, after judgment, to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff; on being arrested, the defendant is entitled to be liberated on giving sufficient bail, which the officer is bound to take. 2. When the arrest is on final process, as a ca. sa., the defendant cannot generally be discharged on bail; and his discharge is considered as an escape.

It will be convenient to consider, 1, who may be arrested; 2, for what crimes; 3, at what time; 4, in what places; 5, by whom and by what authority.

Who May Be Arrested. Generally all persons properly accused of a crime or misdemeanor, may be arrested; by the laws of the United States, ambassadors (q. v.) and other public ministers are exempt from arrest.

For what offences an arrest may be made. It may be made for treason, felony, breach of the peace, or other misdemeanor.

At What Time. An arrest may be made in the night as well as in the day time and for treasons, felonies, and breaches of the peace, on Sunday as well as on other days. It may be made before as well as after indictment found.

At What Places. No place affords protection to offenders against the criminal law; a man may therefore be arrested in his own house, (q.v.) which may be broken into for the purpose of making the arrest.

Who May Arrest And By What Authority. An offender may be arrested either without a warrant or with a warrant. First, an arrest may be made without a warrant by a private individual or by a peace officer. Private individuals are enjoined by law to arrest an offender when present at the time a felony is committed, or a dangerous wound given.

Peace officers may, a fortiori, make an arrest for a crime or misdemeanor committed in their view, without any warrant. An arrest may therefore be made by a constable, a justice of the peace, sheriff, or coroner. Secondly, an arrest may be made by virtue of a warrant, which is the proper course when the circumstances of the case will permit it.

Call me today at 410- 486-1800 for your free consultation.