Can you be arrested for being a person of interest? | GTAMotorcycle.com

Can you be arrested for being a person of interest?

LoneRonin

LoneRonin

Well-known member
based on a hunch but nothing solid...

Example:

Bobby pisses off Johnny. Johnny calls cops and they arrest Bobby. Few months later Johnny's car gets torched, can the Popo arrest Bobby off of suspicion??

I've been watching too much Son's of Anarchy and trying to apply that to reality. Even in a small *** isolated US town I don't see how that **** goes down, yet I'm sure it does....
 
Last edited:
No. A POI can only be sent in for an interview.
 
well... thats not wholey correct Lanny...

Police can arrest and detain a suspect at any time. A Person of Interest, and a suspect is only a matter of wording. Both can be arrested at any time. Its verbage, wording, only.

More-so, what is legal, and what is done are two different things entirely. Individuals are arrested and detained unlawfully all the time, daily if not weekly. The issue is if the victim of unlawful arrest has the means to fight back or not, or if they are willing to risk futher consequences for taking action against a police force.

Just because it isn't legal doesnt mean it doesn't happen. Several police officers have told me over the years (my previous employ) "It doesn't matter what actually happened - all that matters is what is written in your notes".
 
Grimmy said:
well... thats not wholey correct Lanny...

Police can arrest and detain a suspect at any time. A Person of Interest, and a suspect is only a matter of wording. Both can be arrested at any time. Its verbage, wording, only.

More-so, what is legal, and what is done are two different things entirely. Individuals are arrested and detained unlawfully all the time, daily if not weekly. The issue is if the victim of unlawful arrest has the means to fight back or not, or if they are willing to risk futher consequences for taking action against a police force.

Just because it isn't legal doesnt mean it doesn't happen. Several police officers have told me over the years (my previous employ) "It doesn't matter what actually happened - all that matters is what is written in your notes".
Click to expand...


Correct. But arresting and detaining is different.

Detaining means that if a person for example driving in a HOV lane within rush hour times, the officer stands out and pulls you in. That is detaining.
Arresting is taking away the liberty of a person on reasonable grounds the officer finds you committing a crime, or has a credible witness with the description of the suspect that he or she saw you committing the crime.

I need to review my notes again.. lol :p
 
LannyNguyen said:
Correct. But arresting and detaining is different.

Detaining means that if a person for example driving in a HOV lane within rush hour times, the officer stands out and pulls you in. That is detaining.
Arresting is taking away the liberty of a person on reasonable grounds the officer finds you committing a crime, or has a credible witness with the description of the suspect that he or she saw you committing the crime.

I need to review my notes again.. lol :p
Click to expand...

High school law class?
 
LoneRonin said:
based on a hunch but nothing solid...

Example:

Bobby pisses off Johnny. Johnny calls cops and they arrest Bobby. Few months later Johnny's car gets torched, can the Popo arrest Bobby off of suspicion??

I've been watching too much Son's of Anarchy and trying to apply that to reality. Even in a small *** isolated US town I don't see how that **** goes down, yet I'm sure it does....
Click to expand...

Unless there is imminent danger the police take their time to investigate whether there is any evidence with which to charge Bobby. A lot depends on the severity of the crime. Anything that involves bullet holes gets immediate attention. Simple vandalism (Keying etc) probably not so much. The police are highly unlikely to arrest Bobby because he ****** off Johnny over a girl or some personal insult so the start point is too vague.

They would investigate an arson case and therefore talk to any person of interest. There would have to be evidence for them to take things farther unless they're on a fishing expedition.

Obviously if Johnny is a cop he could make things awkward for Bobby.
 
Arrested? Sure. Held? Not really.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms: DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Arrested? Sure. Held? Not really.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms: DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT.

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Click to expand...

Charter of rights:

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Click to expand...

1 trumps 2-33, including 9 :cool:
 
LoneRonin said:
I've been watching too much Son's of Anarchy and trying to apply that to reality. Even in a small *** isolated US town I don't see how that **** goes down, yet I'm sure it does....
Click to expand...

In the US, as of last year - you can now be detained indefinitely for any reason whatsoever (Obama slid this little gem in under the radar). You can also be stripped searched at any time for any reason.
 
Nyx13 said:
In the US, as of last year - you can now be detained indefinitely for any reason whatsoever (Obama slid this little gem in under the radar). You can also be stripped searched at any time for any reason.
Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing any supporting information for this and, contrary to popular belief, "Obama" is rarely, if ever responsible for penning legislation. The position of the American President, under their system of government, is actually far less influential of such things than is our own Prime Minister.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Charter of rights:



1 trumps 2-33, including 9 :cool:
Click to expand...

No.

1 doesn't trump a lot of the sections. 7 is probably the best example, and its because of the language.

7 says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

1 talks about REASONABLE limits.

How can a deprivation of life, libery or security of the person not in accodrance witth the principles of fundamental justice also be reasonable and demonstrabily justified in a free and democractic society?

it can't.

9 is similar, because arbitary detentions aren't reasonable.
 
OP the short answer is yes you can be placed under arrest for just about anything. You might not be detained long or ever be charged, but you can be placed under arrest for being a person of interest. If your asked to come in to the station and dont feel much like it, you'll be placed under arrest and taken in.
 
Sorry guys, what I guess I was meaning to say is: There is a far cry difference between what is lawful, what police actually do, and what you as an ordinary citizen can do (afford financially) to enforce their rights.
 
How would this scenario play out??

you had an altercation with a person and had them charged, then a few months later they come back and vandalize your property/home? There is no evidence other than the damage or any witnesses who saw what happened.
Its pointing fingers but its pretty obvious it was planned out retaliation. The suspicion lies on a particular person because of the police report and charges laid a few months ago due to a dispute.
Would there be probable cause/reasonable grounds for an arrest just going off of the previous history, suspicion and damage caused?
 
LoneRonin said:
How would this scenario play out??

you had an altercation with a person and had them charged, then a few months later they come back and vandalize your property/home? There is no evidence other than the damage or any witnesses who saw what happened.
Its pointing fingers but its pretty obvious it was planned out retaliation. The suspicion lies on a particular person because of the police report and charges laid a few months ago due to a dispute.
Would there be probable cause/reasonable grounds for an arrest just going off of the previous history, suspicion and damage caused?
Click to expand...

In such a case the person might be "called in for an interview", in hopes that he was nervous enough to incriminate himself. Other than that nothing is likely to happen, without actual evidence.
 
Whether the offense is a summary conviction or indictable offense will determine how and under what reasonable grounds a person can be arrested without a warrant or without the police actually being witness to the committed offense. That's my interpretation of the Criminal Code anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom