Opinion ID: 786438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court Appearance

Text: 14 Rivera next takes issue with the time that elapsed before he was presented to a judicial officer for a probable-cause hearing. He asks us to suppress his statement and other evidence as a result of the alleged unreasonable delay in presenting him to a magistrate for a hearing on whether there was sufficient probable cause to justify his warrantless arrest. 15 A person taken into custody without a warrant is constitutionally guaranteed a hearing on the propriety of the warrantless arrest. The Fourth Amendment requires that a procedure exist whereby a judicial officer can make a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 125, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). And, as noted by Rivera, we have previously concluded that even a time-period of two hours could be too long. In United States v. Davis, 174 F.3d 941 (8th Cir.1999), Davis was in a holding cell for two hours; no booking procedures were initiated; Davis was not finger-printed; and no police report was filed. We concluded that Davis was detained for the sole purpose of investigating whether she had committed other criminal offenses, and not for the purpose of processing her on the arrest charges. Id. at 944-945. 16 However, unlike Davis, Rivera was taken to the county jail, formally booked, and finger-printed. Although he was subject to an overnight detention, this detention was reasonable considering his late-evening arrest and his desire to cooperate. This overnight stay allowed officers to consult with government attorneys regarding Rivera's expressed desire to cooperate with authorities. The record shows that Rivera chose to cooperate and that the detention was not a charade conducted for the sole purpose of investigating Rivera's other crimes. Accordingly, we find no constitutional violation and affirm the district court's suppression denial.