Opinion ID: 178471
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arrest In Other Contexts

Text: The following non-exhaustive discussion of the word arrest, as used in a legal sense, illustrates that the word has become a chameleon, frequently defined by the context in which it is used. For example, much of the search and seizure jurisprudence is concerned with officer safety and the protection of evidence with arrest interpreted accordingly. See Knowles, 525 U.S. at 117, 119 S.Ct. 484 (observing, The threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation, however, is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest, and refusing to extend the search incident to arrest exception to allow searches incident to a citation). In Miranda cases, the definition of arrest is influenced by whether or not the action of the law enforcement authorities is sufficient to lead to the threat of coerced statements. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. at 438, 104 S.Ct. 3138 (Two features of an ordinary traffic stop mitigate the danger that a person questioned will be induced `to speak where he would not otherwise do so freely....'). A few other contexts deserve somewhat more detailed discussion.
[D]ictionary definitions are cognizable as tools for determining the ordinary meaning of words used in a statute. United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 598 F.3d 1239, 1242(9th Cir.2010). Dictionary definitions of arrest, however, do not lead to one clear meaning of arrest for purposes of interpretation of the Sentencing Guideline in question. While many dictionary definitions include the taking of an individual into custody, see Black's Law Dictionary, 116 (8th ed. 2004) (Arrest means a seizure or forcible restraint or the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially in response to a criminal charge.); Webster's New World Law Dictionary (2010) (an arrest is [t]he intentional deprivation, whether actual or constructive, of a person's freedom by legal authorities using forcible restraint, seizure, or otherwise taking the individual into custody, especially in response to a warrant or a suspicion based on probable cause that the person being arrested has committed a crime.); The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 83 (1979) (arrest is defined as to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody.), others do not. See John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary (1856) (an arrest has been defined as the apprehending or detaining of the person, in order to be forthcoming to answer an alleged or suspected crime.); Dictionary of American History (2003) (An arrest occurs when a public officer acting under legal authority detains an individual to answer for a criminal offense.); Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, (1999) (Arrest is the restraining and seizure of a person whether or not by physical force by someone acting under authority in connection with a crime in such a manner that it is reasonable under the circumstances for the person to believe that he or she is not free to leave.). These various sources demonstrate that, while most definitions of arrest require restraint, seizure, or detention, not all specify that custody is required, and most are silent as to how lengthy the period of restraint, seizure, or detention must be in order to constitute an arrest.
There is some support in English common law for the view that arrest includes custody. [A] constable, having reasonable cause to suspect a person has committed a felony may detain such person until he can be brought before a justice of the peace to have his conduct investigated. Horace L. Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L.Rev. 673, 689 (1924) (quoting Beckwith v. Philby, 108 Eng. Repr. 585 (1827)). However, common law commentators have reached divergent conclusions with respect to the definition of an arrest under English common law. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 328, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001). Neither has traditional American common law developed a consistent definition of the term arrest. The state of Maryland, as one of the original colonies, and the first of the colonies to be a proprietary government (the proprietor and the freemen are allowed to make laws independent of England). See Henry William Elson, History of the United States of America Chapter IV, 75-83 (The MacMillan Company, New York, 1904), provides a particularly instructive example of the imprecision of a common law definition of arrest. See Thomas K. Clancy, What Constitutes An Arrest Within The Meaning Of The Fourth Amendment, 48 Vill. L.Rev. 129, FN 27 (2003). Maryland courts have defined arrest in a variety of ways determined by the context in which the term was used. See Little v. State, 300 Md. 485, 479 A.2d 903, 915-16 (1984) (concluding that brief stop at sobriety checkpoint was not arrest); Morton v. State, 284 Md. 526, 397 A.2d 1385, 1388 (1979) (arrest occurred when there was manual seizure of suspect and subsequent restraint on his liberty); Bouldin v. State, 276 Md. 511, 350 A.2d 130, 133-34 (1976) (citing several formulations of common law definition of arrest). Maryland common law is but one example of a body of American common law that has not developed one consistent definition for arrest.
[H]ow a state characterizes its own offenses and sentences generally is not relevant to a federal sentence calculation. United States v. Mendoza-Morales, 347 F.3d 772, 776(9th Cir.2003). For example, [t]his Court has ruled that in deciding whether a prior state conviction should be counted for purposes of a federal criminal history calculation, a district court must examine federal law. Id. However, a review of the relevant California statutes in this case further illustrates the potentially ambiguous nature of the term arrest, as it has evolved in the legal sense. California Penal Code § 834 provides that [a]n arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law. However, the specific section of the California Penal Code pursuant to which Leal-Felix received his citations, § 40303, provides a procedure by which the arresting officer in lieu of taking the individual before a magistrate, may give the arrested person a 10 days' notice to appear (a citation). The interaction of these two sections may be read to create an ambiguity by providing that an arrested person may receive a citation when an arrest does not occur until a person is taken into custody. Further, the Supreme Court of California has stated that when the officer determines there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and begins the process of citing the violator to appear in court, an `arrest' takes place at least in the technical sense. People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 7 Cal.3d 186, 101 Cal.Rptr. 837, 496 P.2d 1205, 1213 (1972).