General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHUGE Revelation on Al Sharpton's Show
There was an attorney on that insists since GZ was handcuffed he was technically arrested.
They may not have proceeded with booking him or any of the other procedures
but he was arrested.
According to FL State law, if a suspect is not charged within 175 days of being
arrested, he is forever free and cannot be charged in that crime.
This would certainly explain the stalling taking place in charging GZ if
there was a cover-up.
Will provide the video when it becomes available.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755884/#46910352
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)Something definitely smells in FL.
Raine
(30,540 posts)Zimmerman has got to be arrested like now!
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)that is the ONLY thing that makes any kind of sense to all this mess.
the rotten fuckers thought - meh, just another black kid dead, no one's going to do much.
rotten murderess freaks. gawd how I have so much rage in my heart against them right now.
holy cow.
whew. wow.
Nuh uh. Nobody female is responsible for this mess.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)There's no time limit anymore.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Denying a person their civil rights? You can wait decades before you charge someone with that crime, and the Feds have done just that before.
He ain't getting away with this shit. I have to believe that there will be justice.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The feds are going to have to get involved, and they're already looking, IIRC.
He very well may get charged with violating the civil rights of Trayvon Martin.
Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)I think you can be detained for so many hours before they either need to release you or arrest and charge you.
SamG
(535 posts)Let's talk about the legal procedures and regulations of Florida law enforcement.
Can one be "detained" for questioning while being handcuffed?
I need to know where to find documentation of basic criminal procedures for law enforcement in the state of Florida. It MUST be universal statewide.
ALL police departments must follow the law. ALL, not just big city ones, not just everyone but Sanford.
Put cuffs on a suspect, he's under arrest in FL. Is that the case? Can police let someone go without booking once the cops put the cuffs on someone? I simply do not know what the law and the procedures are in FL.
pschoeb
(1,066 posts)If the officer can justify that the cuffs are necessary for the officer or others safety, which would not be hard under the circumstances.
reACTIONary
(5,749 posts)FarPoint
(12,209 posts)I was listening while driving home....also...I had a thought...
Did the medical staff, RN or booking medic ever check out Zimmerman when he came into the jail? They do have 24/7 medical staff. If he was even a fraction of the claims of being beaten and injured, medical must screen them.
Also; officers always take arrested clients to the hospital to be checked out...this crap about being seen in the back if a cruiser is not how thing roll...ever..... Just saying....
vaberella
(24,634 posts)csziggy
(34,120 posts)Not sure if they were EMTs but EMTs were at the scene and declared Trayvon dead, so I suspect the were.
In the initial report it just says treated by SFD.
If he had been seriously injured, competent EMTs would have recommended that Zimmerman be taken to the hospital. Of course, Zimmerman could have refused but he probably would have been required to sign a form saying that he refused to go for additional treatment.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If zimmerman had even mentioned having his head "bashed against concrete" along with a suspicion of a broken nose, he would have been taken to the hospital for a "head check" ... Unless zimmerman refused treatment/transport.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)That Zimmerman had his head hit against anything solid.
I was knocked down by a horse and bashed my head against a concrete wall. I was stunned for several minutes and then dizzy and nauseous for several hours. My husband took me to doctor and I had a mild concussion which took me a couple of weeks to recover from.
There is no way I could have been as coordinated and steady as Zimmerman was on the video at the PD less than an hour after his supposed attack. And that was the mildest of my four concussions, each of which involved only a single strike or hit. I didn't even lose consciousness with that one but I was definitely not steady on my feet and capable of bantering with anyone.
Zimmerman's story is complete BS - especially since the versions keep changing. On another forum, they've counted at least six different version, none of which match the evidence.
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)It's more falsehoods being spewed by the guilty.... they are trying to re-write this tragedy.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)if he had injuries and was being taken into custody...it would be mandatory for law enforcement to make sure that none of his injuries were life threatening. The ONLY way to do this would be for him to have been taken to the hospital...SO I don't believe he was arrested. I also don't believe he was injured. The blood that was cleaned off of him at the scene was no doubt Trayvon's.
unblock
(51,974 posts)if you're arrested and NOT CHARGED and you are released, if you're then not charged within 175 days, you can't be charged with -- WHAT crime? there were no charges, so what crime would you be "forever free" from? any and all crimes?
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)that is the law. Remember you are dealing with FL.
The attorney that quoted and explained the law seemed
very well informed and credible.
unblock
(51,974 posts)then they can't then come up with felony drunk driving charges 1 year later. i can see that as a legitimate speedy trial protection. but that wouldn't protect you if, say, they later find out that you murdered someone that same day you were drunk driving.
so how do they relate the arrest to the crime? without charges, the police could say they arrested you for one thing, then 176 days later charge you with something else.
in this case, if the arrest is a technicality, i'd think that would be especially easy.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)Isn't that what the entire world is waiting for? This OP addresses whether
he was ever arrested. He could have been arrested but not charged, then
later released. Once he passed by the cameras in the entry area of the PD
all we know is that Chief of Police Lee and State's Attorney Norman Wolfinger
were waiting to meet with him, highly unusual.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)There would have to be at least a written "intent" of some sort in order to protect that person from being arrested for "that" particular crime in the future.
Also, is Florida different than everywhere else that you can be "arrested" just by being handcuffed and not read your Miranda Rights? I've been handcuffed and not arrested. Um...by cops. It's for their own safety (and yours) until they've completed prelim investigation (checking backgrounds, etc.).
I'm confused as hell.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Florida Right to Speedy Trial
Two different types of speedy trial rights exist under for a criminal case in Florida.
First, a person charged with a criminal offense is Florida is entitled to the statutory speedy trial rights provided under the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutory provisions which provide for very specific time limits - 90 days for a misdemeanor and 175 days for a felony.
Second, a person charged with a criminal offense is entitled to the federal constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment which provide for a speedy trial even when the statutory remedy has been waived.
http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/FloridaDefenses/SpeedyTrial.aspx
I just Googled and came up with this. (I don't know anything about the law firm.)
Spazito
(49,761 posts)given the 'ticking clock' time limit. Everything points to them trying to run the clock out, that's the intent behind a lot of what happened and quite possibly is still happening.
The Grand Jury doesn't meet until April, how long will it take for them to complete their work? Could it take 6 months? If so, then the time limit would have already been reached given 33 days have already passed.
I hope the pressure to act ratchets up even more on the SA to act given what is already known and public instead of waiting for a Grand Jury presentment.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)No need to even apply 'critical thinking 101'.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)How in hell do they solve murders in that state??!!
Hanging chads, handcuffing 5 year olds, tasering Grandma's and Alex Lifeson and now this?
What the hell's the matter with that state?
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)(a) Speedy Trial without Demand. Except as otherwise provided by this rule, and subject to the limitations imposed under subdivisions (e) and (f), every person charged with a crime shall be brought to trial within 90 days of arrest if the crime charged is a misdemeanor, or within 175 days of arrest if the crime charged is a felony. If trial is not commenced within these time periods, the defendant shall be entitled to the appropriate remedy as set forth in subdivision (p). The time periods established by this subdivision shall commence when the person is taken into custody as defined under subdivision (d). A person charged with a crime is entitled to the benefits of this rule whether the person is in custody in a jail or correctional institution of this state or a political subdivision thereof or is at liberty on bail or recognizance or other pretrial release condition. This subdivision shall cease to apply whenever a person files a valid demand for speedy trial under subdivision (b).
Edited to add following link to .pdf of entire 'Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (must copy and paste as DU munges the link when prefixed with http:// ):
www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/0/BDFE1551AD291A3F85256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)no not a statue of making an arrest. As I know it...murder has no statue of limitations.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Manslaughter is not murder.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)barbtries
(28,702 posts)which as i understand it has definitely not occurred in Trayvon's murder case.
unblock
(51,974 posts)and there's a procedure under subdivision (p).
it's not like the 175 days quietly expires and then the state says "oops".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)As stated here, does not support what the OP suggests:
According to FL State law, if a suspect is not charged within 175 days of being
arrested, he is forever free and cannot be charged in that crime.
The key words in the Speed Trial Statute are "if the crime charged".
While it is debatable (and IMHO, doubtful) whether zimmerman was "under arrest" ... just being handcuffed and transported to a police station does not suffice, it is certain that he has not been charged with a crime.
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)Rev Al specifically asked him if this would mean he could
no longer be charged with this crime and the attorney said, "No
he could not."
The video will be interesting to hear AGAIN.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If someone is CHARGED with a crime; but not brought to trial within specified time-frames, they do have a Speedy Trial claim and will be freed - not to be charged again (Double Jeopardy).
That is both on the state and federal level, both of which are contained in the U.S. Constitution.
But being detained, even arrested by L/E is NOT the same as being CHARGED. Two different branches of government involved ... the detention/arrest is the executive branch, while the Charge is the judicial branch.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)and not arrested. That is the question that needs to be answered, because if the clock
IS ticking the charges must be filed very soon.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The clock is not ticking ... an arrest does not start the Speedy Trial clock, an indictment does.
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)Plus, no charges brought...thus the clock can tick all it wants regarding murder.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)(here: http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf )
the officers write "in custody" and "and was secured in handcuffs". Nothing mentioning 'arrest'.
Spazito
(49,761 posts)With Zimmerman handcuffed, transported to the station and then interviewed/interrogated, how does this not fail the "free to leave" test.
The police report states clearly he is in handcuffs and in custody which negates his freedom to leave.
Here is the USSC holding on this issue:
"The Court held that there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. As such, the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FifthAmendment/mirandaVarizonaOverview.aspx
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)"In killing, basic facts still elusive": http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/in-killing-basic-facts-still-elusive/1222306
Spazito
(49,761 posts)If one is read their Miranda rights it is clear one is under arrest with all the requisite legal safeguards but, if it did not happen, any questioning done while Zimmerman was still considered "in custody" his statement, for starters, would be an issue, imo, if this does go to court.
It is interesting nobody has raised the Miranda question yet given the handcuffs and the 'partial' police report.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You bring up an interest anomaly is the Florida Law ...
The law states, specifically, that a person claiming SYG/Self-defense CANNOT be arrested unless there is probable cause that the shooting was unjustified. How can L/E develop probable cause AND preserve those non-Mirandized statements for trial?
Spazito
(49,761 posts)keeping in mind this is speculation on my part. If after Zimmerman is escorted into the interview room, we do see him entering that room on the longer video, the cuffs are removed and Zimmerman is asked to volunteer his statement about the events with the police making it clear he is NOT under arrest and he is free to refuse and free to leave. In that case, the statement/s would not be in question as to their use in a trial.
During the Casey Anthony trial, her defense lawyers tried to get some of her statements thrown out because she had been handcuffed for approximately 45 minutes, the defense saying that due to the handcuffing she was under arrest at that time. The handcuffing was a misunderstanding by the officer and the cuffs were removed before she was questioned and before she voluntarily got into the police vehicle to show them where the non-existent nanny lived so the defense's attempt failed. The reason I mention this is because this, as we all know, occurred in Florida as well and the issue that being handcuffed indicates arrest was raised.
To me, it rests with the "free to leave" test as to the admissibility of any statements taken. For them to be admissible either they are given voluntarily or they are given once advised of their rights per Miranda.
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)there is a woman named Holly Hughs, that speaks about this with Don Lemon on CNN.
She appeared yesterday. Hughs makes some good points and really seems to know
what she's talking about. She's been commenting on this case for the past week.
Sorry, don't have time to search for link right now.
Agony
(2,605 posts)pschoeb
(1,066 posts)Police can detain you without arresting you, and they can cuff you when they detain you, and they can hold you for questioning for a reasonable amount of time.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)But these days with Republican-run states & ALEC calling the shots, one never knows.
I found this information, but is it up to date?
Capital felony, life felony, or felony that results in a death: No statute of limitations
1st degree felony: 4 years
Any other felony: 3 years
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/criminal-case-statute-of-limitations/FL-felonies-misdemeanors.htm
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It's about a Constitutional right to a speedy trial.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)& will file the charges well within that 175-day period.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)charged as a hate crime. That would be a very high hurdle to clear ... unless the disputed part of the 911 tape, i.e., coon/goon statement, is plainly established.
Now a violation of civil rights charge ... absolutely.
Spazito
(49,761 posts)"775.15 Time limitations; general time limitations; exceptions.
(1) A prosecution for a capital felony, a life felony, or a felony that resulted in a death may be commenced at any time. If the death penalty is held to be unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, all crimes designated as capital felonies shall be considered life felonies for the purposes of this section, and prosecution for such crimes may be commenced at any time."
It seems there is no statute of limitations for charges of a felony that resulted in a death.
Here is the link I found the info on:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/filestores/web/statutes/fs07/CH0775/Section_0775.15.HTM
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Please see my prior post in this thread referencing the 175 day issue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=496624
Spazito
(49,761 posts)I understand the "speedy trial" aspect which occurs AFTER charges are laid, the discussion was re a time limitation to lay charges after an arrest, the former prosecutor on the show was very clear that because Zimmerman was handcuffed, he had been "technically" arrested but, as we know, has not been charged.
The question that still seems unanswered was Zimmerman, under law, considered to have been arrested because he was handcuffed and interrogated at the station? If he was arrested but not charged, is there a time limitation under those circumstances.
If one is handcuffed, without the freedom to leave, are they considered by law to be in custody? If so, would that not be, at the very least, "technically" under arrest? If not, why not?
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)concerning the distinction between "custody" and "arrest."
apparently there are some grey areas. I will try and find it
and post here if I do.
Here it is...not sure how reliable the site is.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6137055_difference-between-formal-arrest-custody_.html
Spazito
(49,761 posts)set the "free to leave" test as the determinant and is used by the courts currently. Here is their holding in that case as well as the facts, in summary:
"Facts
The Supreme Courts decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.
Supreme Court holding:
The Court held that there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves. As such, the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
The Court further held that without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individuals will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ClassroomActivities/FifthAmendment/mirandaVarizonaOverview.aspx
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)This is from your link.
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)matter of policy to cuff shooters after any incident to take them to hdqtrs for questioning, w/o it being an arrest. For protection of the officers, is one reason.
I don't know. But one thing I do know is...he'll be arrested and charged with a crime.
Gman
(24,780 posts)That's when you're officially arrested. Otherwise, you're "detained".
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)Now they're just trying to run out the clock.
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)it ain't going to be pretty if they get away with it.
marshall gaines
(347 posts)this man is going to get away with murder.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)questioning is not the same as an arrest. So the charging statute doesn't come into play.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I doubt his short detention will count as an arrest in this case.
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)answer on that. Watching this get tied up in court in
the event that becomes an issue further complicates
the case.
Apparently there are three cases that went before the
Supreme Court just to determine the difference between
being held in custody and being arrested.
There's enough probable cause for him to be charged and
arrested so why the delay?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Arrests are often delayed to give prosecutors time to fully investigate and build a case without
such a clock running.
MD20
(123 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2012, 06:21 AM - Edit history (1)
In the initial police report, Zimmerman is charged with Negligent homicide. That is why he was handcuffed and transported to the station for processing. The lead investigator did not believe Zimmerman's story and wanted the charge to stick, however, the State attorney(Wolf-something or other) decided that under the SYG law there was not enough evidence to substantiate a charge.
He overrode the lead investigator. (Wolf-something or other) has since sidestepped the incident by appointing an associate to replace himself in the face of a Federal investigation, probably fearing that his "mistake" will come under scrutiny. At the very least, any further involvement on his part would constitute a conflict of interest.
The central issue, though, is whether the 175 day limit applies here or not? SInce the charges were dropped, it would seem that he does not have the right to a speedy trial until he is re-charged. That is just my opinion.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)MD20
(123 posts)Since he has not been tried, there has been no violation of Double Jeopardy.
According to the links provided here by posters the prosecutors can take their time
( up to ten years) to bring GZ to trial for any kind of homicide.
While the world at large is demanding "justice now," they might have to wait a long time for the state to act. If the prosecutor proceeds too quickly and charges GZ too soon, the 175 day clock start to tick. But an even shorter dead line looms if GZ serves a 'Demand for Speedy Trial" upon the prosecutor. If that happens, a 60 day limit is imposed to get the subject to trial.
While the specter of "a cover up" has tainted the investigation, I think the prosecutors are probably fine tuning their case for a strategic loss. GZ is likely going to be represented by the best lawyers money can buy. With that sobering thought in mind, there must be a frantic scramble by the State to repair the damage already done to their case by the initial shoddy investigation. They at least have to have the appearance of trying to placate the public.
This is my take on things after reading the links provided by our resourceful friend here in this thread!
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)handcuffs does not = arrest
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)A FL. prosecuting attorney did. Is he full of shit too?
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)Most likely you did not watch the show.
the online experts crack me up!
thx
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)And sometimes being detained involves handcuffs.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)...
Ken is an Adjunct Professor at Nova Southeastern University Law Center for the past 17 years and has taught and lectured extensively in the areas of trial advocacy, scientific evidence and trial exhibits. He was a Faculty Instructor for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy, Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, University of Florida Law School prosecutor/Public Defender course, Institute of Police Technology and Management and the National Student Leadership Conference at American University in Washington D.C. and Stanford University in California. Ken was the Director of the Pre-Law program at American Heritage High School where he taught students five days a week before going to court. Ken has previously sat as Chairman of a Grievance Committee for the Florida Bar, which handles matters of attorney misconduct and discipline.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33301-fl-kenneth-padowitz-1267889/aboutme.html
There are several references to the 175 day requirement on the web. Here's just one
The prosecution has 175 days from the May 4 arrest to formally file charges.
...
Padowitz now calls the case an abomination.
Theyre dropping charges after what, 120, 130 days, after hes been on ice all this time? he asked. Something smells to high holy hell. Im happy, but this is ridiculous.
Nothing happens for months and I write the letter, and all of a sudden, boom, theyre questioning the witnesses? he said. Its very coincidental. Theres no follow-up, no questioning of witnesses, no collection of evidence, no fingerprints. So the defendants family has to do the investigation?
...
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/sep/06/charges-dropped-attorneys-allege-sheriffs-office-c/
Here's a detailed explanation from another attorney
Filing Formal Charges
Just because you have been arrested does not mean that you will actually be charged with a crime. After being arrested, the State Attorney reviews the Law Enforcement Officer's charging affidavit that describes the incident that led to your arrest.
Many times the State Attorney's Office will find that the Law Enforcement Officer narrative does not rise to the level of a crime, or they find that the offenses charged by Law Enforcement are excessive and the State Attorney's Office files lesser charges.
This is a crucial time, because many times I can intervene with the State Attorney's Office and persuade them that not to file formal charges, or to file lesser charge that are more appropriate for your conduct. The worst thing that could happen would be if the State Attorney's Office filed the most severe charges possible for your facts. That puts us at a disadvantage in future negotiations.
...
The law of the State of Florida gives the State Attorney this type of discretion and they can subpoena these witnesses to come to court even if they should indicate that they do not want to. Nevertheless, the prosecutor must file formal charges within 90 days of your arrest if a misdemeanor offense, or 175 days of your arrest if a felony offense. Otherwise, the State Attorney is forbidden from pursuing charges against you after the expiration of that period. This rule is intertwined with your right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
...
http://www.richardhornsby.com/criminal/guide/formal-charges.html
EmeraldCityGrl
(4,310 posts)Very clearly answers many questions and should give us all
reason for concern that this case may never result in charges
or anything resembling justice for Trayvon.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Even if someone was arrested in connection with a murder or manslaughter, then let go for lack of evidence, I think once there was enough evidence he could be arrested again.