Also known as: arrestable offence · arrestable offenses · arrestable offences · arrestable crime
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An offense for which the punishment is fixed by law or for which a statute authorizes imprisonment for five years, or an attempt to commit such an offense. This category was created by statute in 1967 and replaced the traditional felony-misdemeanor distinction.
An offense for which the punishment is fixed by law or for which a statute authorizes imprisonment for five years, or an attempt to commit such an offense. This category was created by statute in 1967 and replaced the traditional felony-misdemeanor distinction.
1 common questions
In English law the term designates a specific statutory category of offenses carrying at least five years' imprisonment or fixed punishment. In U.S. constitutional cases the phrase simply identifies any offense for which custodial arrest is authorized under the probable-cause standard.
Any criminal violation for which officers may lawfully take a suspect into custody. Under the Fourth Amendment an arrest satisfies constitutional requirements when the facts known to the officer at the time supply probable cause to believe the suspect committed at least one such offense, regardless of the offense the officer subjectively identified.
Any criminal violation for which officers may lawfully take a suspect into custody. Under the Fourth Amendment an arrest satisfies constitutional requirements when the facts known to the officer at the time supply probable cause to believe the suspect committed at least one such offense, regardless of the offense the officer subjectively identified.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Darius parked his truck across a fire hydrant on a closed street. Officer Chen arrested him after an argument with a site inspector and cited a safety-code violation. Local law made blocking emergency access an arrestable offense. The court upheld the arrest because the objective facts supplied probable cause for that offense even though Chen never mentioned it at the scene.
Officers stopped Moore for driving on a suspended license. State law required only a summons rather than arrest for that violation. The officers nevertheless took Moore into custody and searched him. The arrest remained valid under the Fourth Amendment because the facts known to the officers supported probable cause for an arrestable offense even though state procedure preferred a citation.
On February 20, 2008, two city of Portsmouth police officers stopped a car driven by David Lee Moore. They had heard over the police radio that a person known as “Chubs” was driving with a suspended license, and one of the officers knew Moore by that nickname. The officers determined that Moore’s license was in fact suspended, and arrested him for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license. The officers subsequently searched Moore and found that he was carrying 16 grams of crack cocaine and $516 in cash. Under state law, the officers should have issued Moore a summons instead of arresting him. Driving on a suspended license, like some other misdemeanors, is not an arrestable offense except as to those who fail or refuse to discontinue the violation, and those whom the officer reasonably believes to be likely to disregard a summons, or likely to harm themselves or others. The intermediate appellate court found none of these circumstances applicable, and Virginia did not appeal that determination. Moore was charged with possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute it in violation of Virginia law. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence from the arrest search. The trial court denied the motion, and after a bench trial found Moore guilty of the drug charge and sentenced him to a 5-year prison term, with one year and six months of the sentence suspended. The conviction was reversed by a panel of Virginia’s intermediate court on Fourth Amendment grounds. It was reinstated by the intermediate court sitting en banc. It was finally reversed again by the Virginia Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View case2 common questions
No. The Fourth Amendment requires only that objective probable cause exist for some arrestable offense at the moment of arrest. The officer's subjective belief or announced charge is irrelevant once that objective standard is met.
Supporting sources
The arrest remains valid. Courts look to whether the facts known to the officer would lead a reasonable person to believe the suspect committed any arrestable offense. A mistaken label does not invalidate an otherwise supported seizure.
Supporting sources
…to arrest the defendant for his failure to stop. The fact that the defendant's license had been suspended was an additional arrestable offense. Finally, the judge stated that the search of the defendant's SUV was lawful because, among other reasons, the officers had probable cause to arrest the defendant for operating a motor…