• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

interesting distinction

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
In the meantime, people should be aware that they do not have the right to resist detention by officers, he said. Although Virginia has a law allowing citizens to resist unlawful arrest, the state Supreme Court has ruled this right does not extend to unlawful detention.

The 2002 ruling in Commonwealth v. Hill asserts that the distinction is important because a detention only temporarily restricts a person’s freedom, as opposed to an arrest that can result in a conviction and restrict freedom for an extended period of time.

“The commonwealth contends that a rule permitting a detainee to resist an illegal detention would escalate the danger of violence to law enforcement officers engaged in the reasonable performance of their duties,” reads the ruling.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
DAMMIT, peter! You know you are supposed to provide a link.

Do it, and then go stand in the corner and think about what you did.

stay safe.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
In the meantime, people should be aware that they do not have the right to resist detention by officers, he said. Although Virginia has a law allowing citizens to resist unlawful arrest, the state Supreme Court has ruled this right does not extend to unlawful detention.

The 2002 ruling in Commonwealth v. Hill asserts that the distinction is important because a detention only temporarily restricts a person’s freedom, as opposed to an arrest that can result in a conviction and restrict freedom for an extended period of time.

“The commonwealth contends that a rule permitting a detainee to resist an illegal detention would escalate the danger of violence to law enforcement officers engaged in the reasonable performance of their duties,” reads the ruling.

Hey!! I've been referring to this case by the wrong name for a few years.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Here's a link for anybody who wants to read it (don't blame me if you lose your cookies). http://valawyersweekly.com/fulltext-opinions/2002/11/01/commonwealth-v-hill-3/

The really disgusting part, in my mind, is the court erases your right to resist illegal arrest in certain circumstances. Here's how. Its very simple. If you're handcuffed "for officer safety" during an illegal detention, you can't possibly resist if it escalates to an illegal arrest.

So, a cop moves in to cuff you, stating its for "officer safety". Then, after you're cuffed, he announces you're under arrest (assuming he gives you the courtesy of announcing it).

You have no way to know unless the officer deigns to be honest about what he's up to.

The seeds for this were planted years ago in Terry vs Ohio. In that case, the power of police to temporarily detain a suspect, and pat him down for weapons, was invented by the US Supreme Court out of thin air. The crucial element for this discussion is that SCOTUS, in the last paragraph of that case, makes it clear that determining the legality of the detention is up to the courts. And, since the courts only get involve later, that means the legality of the detention is determined only after the detention occurs.

But, here's the worst part. Lets go back a couple years to that fella in (Indiana?) who threw a cop out of his house for attempting entry without a warrant. The state appeals court or legislature tried changing the law to say it was illegal to resist a warrantless entry. On the surface, it doesn't sound terrible. But, it destroys the very foundation of government in this country. In so many words, it makes the individual subservient to government, rather than the other way around. Think about it. The only way an individual can be compelled to submit to government even when government is wrong is if the government is greater than the people. It turns delegated powers on its head. Under the current theory, government gets its power from the people when the people delegate some of their powers to government. Meaning, government is supposed to be the servant, not the master. Requiring people to submit to government even when government is wrong necessarily means government is acting without a delegated power. And the only way that can work is to say the people are servants of government, not the other way around.

Commonwealth vs Hill moves quite a bit in that direction. The court pretends you have a remedy in court; yet, we all know police receive a lot of credibility in the courts, and we all know, or can find out easily enough, how the courts fail to support rights. So, while the court in Commonwealth v Hill pretends you have a remedy in court, its a false implication. That case says in so many words that you are subservient to government. It doesn't go as far as the (Indiana?) situation, but its there. In VA, when it comes to an illegal detention, you are the servant, not the master. And, if you want to be vindicated, you better have so many facts and so much proof on your side the court can't find a way to minimize or ignore it without looking like monkeys.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
In the meantime, people should be aware that they do not have the right to resist detention by officers, he said. Although Virginia has a law allowing citizens to resist unlawful arrest, the state Supreme Court has ruled this right does not extend to unlawful detention.

The 2002 ruling in Commonwealth v. Hill asserts that the distinction is important because a detention only temporarily restricts a person’s freedom, as opposed to an arrest that can result in a conviction and restrict freedom for an extended period of time.

“The commonwealth contends that a rule permitting a detainee to resist an illegal detention would escalate the danger of violence to law enforcement officers engaged in the reasonable performance of their duties,” reads the ruling.

We conclude that the law of this Commonwealth, including the common law of England incorporated into our Code by § 1-10, does not provide a basis for recognizing a common law right to use force to resist an illegal detention. In the absence of authority requiring such a right, we perceive no reason for enlarging, by judicial decision, the scope of the common law on this subject.
-- Commonwealth v. Hill, 264 Va. 541, 546, 570 S.E.2d 805 (2002).

There are a couple of problems with this paragraph. First, the creation of an arbitrary distinction between "detention" and "arrest" that doesn't really exist. The word, "arrest", comes to us in the law from Norman French, and simply means, "stop". Historically, there are three levels of arrest: consensual stop, investigative stop, and full custody. In a consensual stop, it's by consent because the person stopped agrees to stop and can walk away any time he likes. Reasonable suspicion is required for an investigative stop, and although the individual is not in full custody, he does not have the right to walk away. It is this intermediate level of arrest that Terry v. Ohio applies to; there's really no such thing as a "Terry stop", the power to search in the event of a perceived threat (and there has to be one) to "officer safety", arises out of the need to detain the individual until a decision whether to place him in custody has been made; that is to determine whether more than reasonable suspicion, i.e., probable cause, exists.

So no real suspicion or cause is necessary for the consensual stop - anyone can stop anyone else at any time to ask a question, for example, "Where's the nearest bus stop?"; and the cops power, absent reasonable suspicion that "crime is afoot" and that the individual stopped is either responsible or a material witness, is limited to chatting. If there is reasonable suspicion, then the cops can detain a person, in handcuffs if necessary. But when I ask you where the bus stop is, I've "arrested" you. So the Court's distinction between "detention" and "arrest" is like a distinction between "truck" and "vehicle".

So in my opinion, the Court is just plain wrong on the issue of illegal arrests. I think the case could have been decided simply on the basis of reasonable suspicion, without talking about the right to refuse to submit to an illegal arrest, since the cop doesn't actually have to be right in his judgment, only that he have a reasonable basis for thinking there's something that needs investigating that he can talk about (a "hunch" is good enough to stop someone to chat, but there has to be reason to think there's crime going on to do more than that). I think the Court confused the standards to be applied, and went where it didn't need to go.

A great deal of the problems created by judicial opinions like Hill are, in my mind, the result of bad lawyering. If an attorney doesn't frame the issues on appeal in such a way as to allow the Court to do something sensible, then it will do something that is, shall we say, less than helpful. I think Hill is open to question and the real kicker is going to be what happens the next time the Court entertains such a case.
 
Last edited:

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
If you are being arrested (detained) there is no real difference in the two that I can tell. It could be possible what makes the difference is what you say next and how you word it from my experience.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I recently had someone who shall remain nameless (not nice to out the mentally deficient) explain it to be in practical terms -

"If I detain you I can change my mind and let you go. If I arrest you the only way you can leave is after you post bail (if they let you do that)."

I was between spoonfuls at the Chinese soup place so did not redecorate the front of his shirt and the rest of the place. My soup got almost cold because I was waiting until I could take another spoonful without the risk of choking from uncontrollable laughter.

stay safe.
 

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
I recently had someone who shall remain nameless (not nice to out the mentally deficient) explain it to be in practical terms -

"If I detain you I can change my mind and let you go. If I arrest you the only way you can leave is after you post bail (if they let you do that)."

I was between spoonfuls at the Chinese soup place so did not redecorate the front of his shirt and the rest of the place. My soup got almost cold because I was waiting until I could take another spoonful without the risk of choking from uncontrollable laughter.

stay safe.
That's the biggest crock of[emoji90] I have heard in a long time. Better yet did that person eat a bowl of stupid for lunch?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
That's the biggest crock of[emoji90] I have heard in a long time. Better yet did that person eat a bowl of stupid for lunch?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

I just report the facts.

If memory serves, he ordered the Kung Po chicken. Have no idea what he had for breakfast.

stay safe.
 

ProShooter

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,663
Location
www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
I recently had someone who shall remain nameless (not nice to out the mentally deficient) explain it to be in practical terms -

"If I detain you I can change my mind and let you go. If I arrest you the only way you can leave is after you post bail (if they let you do that)."

I was between spoonfuls at the Chinese soup place so did not redecorate the front of his shirt and the rest of the place. My soup got almost cold because I was waiting until I could take another spoonful without the risk of choking from uncontrollable laughter.

stay safe.

I used to use Investigatory Detention all the time. Sometimes it led to an arrest, and sometimes not.
 

All American Nightmare

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
521
Location
Never Never Land
Law enforcement is taught to enforce the law. Do you expect something other than that?
To be honest yes I do. What were leos taught by the academy to do if you told the the person they were not under arrest but being detained and not cuffed if they walked away or tried to?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
To be honest yes I do. What were leos taught by the academy to do if you told the the person they were not under arrest but being detained and not cuffed if they walked away or tried to?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk
If your being detained, your not free to leave. If you walk away, expect to be cuffed.
The biggest distinction between a detention and an arrest Is the detention is temporary and can only last a "reasonable" amount of time. There have been a number of court rulings as to what reasonable is. The last one I remember eliminated making the person wait for a dog to arrive in absence of an evidence of a crime .
That used to be a dodge to search vehicles. The officer would say, if you refuse I'll call for a drug dog but it'll be a couple of hours before it can get here.
 
Top