Clark wrote:
|| "~Nins~" wrote in
|| news:JthOb.87357$I06.391831@attbi_s01:
snip
|||||| But, the power afforded is different for the respective parties -
|||||| parties being civilian or security officer, police - there are
|||||| limitations. Ever hear the term, "full police power or
|||||| authority"? I read someplace (forget where) that a "detainment
|||||| becomes an arrest when the arresting individual performs any act
|||||| that indicates an intention to take the person into custody and
|||||| subjects the person arrested to the actual control and will of
|||||| the person making the arrest. The specific determination is
|||||| highly fact based." Perhaps the distinction would be on how it
|||||| is clarified in definition in each State? But, the military is
|||||| still bound by the Comitatus Act and US Code in regards to
|||||| levels of power afforded. They don't actually 'arrest' but hold
|||||| until the appropriate agency with the appropriate level of power
|||||| can do the actual arrest. Well, that's my input, however
|||||| accurate or inaccurate it may be, and take on the issue of
|||||| whether or not the military can arrest civilians. It's a matter
|||||| of definition of the word 'arrest' and the limitations, and the
|||||| powers of arrest afforded.
|||||
||||| Semantics aside, it seems we agree - if a person is held by
||||| military personnel for formal arrest by civilian authority, then
||||| the military has arrested that person.
|||
||| Then you didn't read or comprehend what I wrote.
||
|| You wrote: "detainment becomes an arrest when the arresting
|| individual performs any act that indicates an intention to take the
|| person into custody and subjects the person arrested to the actual
|| control and will of the person making the arrest. The specific
|| determination is highly fact based."

I wrote that I had read that someplace. After that I wrote, "But, the
military is still bound by the Comitatus Act and US Code in regards to
levels of power afforded. They don't actually 'arrest' but hold until the
appropriate agency with the appropriate level of power can do the actual
arrest." You didn't read all of it or you just didn't pay attention to it.
Has the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 been revised as was proposed by Sen.
Biden of Del. in 2002? As of that time the prohibition of military
arresting civilians still stood. I found this article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...2/135458.shtml
If they had or have the power to 'arrest' civilians then why, less than 2
years ago, would a senator want to revise the Act to allow them to arrest?

||
|| Did you mean that or not? Furthermore, since "Colin" reports
|| detainment while holding for civilian authority, is that not arrest?
|| Case law says that it is. Now you may not think the distinction I am
|| making is important but it is because the person the military thinks
|| they have merely detained is in fact due the privileges of a person
|| who is under formal arrest.

Please cite this 'case law' as in-pertinence to the military over civilians.
In the following cases: Whiteley v. Warden 401 US 560 (1971); and, US v.
Hensley 469 US 221 (1985), didn't the holdings in those cases support the
'collective knowledge rule' whereby another officer or agency can be
requested to make the the arrest, the holdings support doing so even if
reasonable suspicion or probable cause does not exist for the action of
detention of the suspect? Correct me if I'm wrong. Here's a link where you
can insert the code to do a search.
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

"MP and civilian guards or police employed by the Army have the same
authority to apprehend. Their authority is derived from the installation
commander's inherent authority to maintain order on the installation.....As
the authority for the citizen's arrest is the law of the local jurisdiction
and not AR 600-40, any variance between it and AR 600-40 should be made
clear to all concerned......Limited authority exists to apprehend persons
not subject to the UCMJ"
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...19-10/Ch10.htm (read the
link).

|| More specifically, when case law shows that detainment for a
|| sufficient period is considered arrest and the detained individual
|| is due the protections of an arrested person, then that person is
|| under arrest whether the detaining authority makes formal record of
|| it or not.

If you go into another state are the laws and ordinances the same as in your
state? Do substantive and procedural statutes/laws differ from state to
state? And do not the law enforcement agencies of those states have to
operate according to the procedural and substantive laws of that state? If
you go onto a military installation, does not that installation have to
follow federal guidelines and such in its operation by its personnel? Posse
Comitatus Act of 1878, and US Code.

This is one of those topics that can be debated on and and on, but I have a
terrible sinus headache and am signing off now. Think and believe what you
want, it isn't going to change the reality and fact of the Comitatus Act and
that the military are subject to it.

Have a good night!