Criminal Procedure and Arrest Flashcards

A peace officer observes a person commit a civil infraction. During the stop, the officer develops reasonable cause to believe the person has also committed a misdemeanor punishable by 90 days in jail, which did not occur in the officer's presence. According to Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 764.15, what is the officer's authority to arrest?

Answer: The officer cannot arrest for the misdemeanor because it was not committed in their presence and is not punishable by more than 92 days.

MCL 764.15(1)(d) specifies that a peace officer may arrest without a warrant when they have reasonable cause to believe a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for *more than 92 days* or a felony has been committed and reasonable cause to believe the person committed it. Since the misdemeanor is only punishable by 90 days and was not committed in the officer's presence, a warrantless arrest is not authorized under this statute for that specific offense.

An officer is questioning a suspect who is in custody at the police station. The suspect clearly and unambiguously states, "I want to talk to a lawyer." What is the officer's legal obligation at this point?

Answer: The officer must immediately cease the interrogation until an attorney is present or the suspect reinitiates contact.

Once a suspect in custody makes an unambiguous request for an attorney, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miranda v. Arizona requires that all interrogation must cease immediately. Questioning can only resume if the attorney is present, or if the suspect voluntarily initiates further communication with the officers.

Which of the following is the primary purpose of the 'Exclusionary Rule' in criminal procedure?

Answer: To deter police misconduct by making illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in court.

The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter law enforcement from violating a person's Fourth Amendment rights. It achieves this by prohibiting the prosecution from using evidence obtained through an illegal search or seizure in their case-in-chief against the defendant.

An officer conducts a lawful traffic stop. The officer observes the driver, who is the sole occupant, making furtive movements toward the passenger compartment. Based on training and experience, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion that the driver may be armed and dangerous. What action is the officer justified in taking under *Terry v. Ohio*?

Answer: Order the driver out of the vehicle and conduct a pat-down (frisk) of their outer clothing for weapons.

The U.S. Supreme Court case *Terry v. Ohio* established the standard for an investigative detention and frisk. If an officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a limited pat-down of the individual's outer clothing to search for weapons for the officer's safety. This does not initially justify a full search of the vehicle or an arrest without further probable cause.

Under Michigan law (MCL 764.16), a private citizen may make a "citizen's arrest." In which of the following scenarios is a citizen authorized to make an arrest?

Answer: If the person to be arrested has committed a felony, even if it was not in the citizen's presence.

MCL 764.16 explicitly states that a private person may make an arrest if the person to be arrested has committed a felony, regardless of whether it was in the private person's presence. The authority to arrest for misdemeanors is generally limited to specific situations like retail fraud for merchants or when summoned by a peace officer, not for any misdemeanor.

A police officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed felony retail fraud and is now inside a third party's private residence, where the suspect is an overnight guest. Which of the following is required for the officer to lawfully enter the residence to arrest the suspect?

Answer: A search warrant for the third party's residence.

To enter a third party's home to arrest a non-resident, police generally need a search warrant for that home, even if they have an arrest warrant for the suspect. The search warrant is necessary to protect the third party's Fourth Amendment privacy rights in their own home. An arrest warrant alone is not sufficient. This principle was established in *Steagald v. United States* and is a key concept in arrest procedures within residences.