"arrest" vs. "charge"

Wed Apr 4 00:32:32 UTC 2012

I don't have BLD in front of me, but I very rarely consult it, except
for obscure and obsolete terms. I went a bit hog wild on the distinction
and want to scale it back a bit--the "suspicion of X" wording seems to
be English, not really used in the US AFAIK.

But this does not mean that I would defer to Gardner, necessarily.
Seizure is a major Constitutional issue (like "taking") and its
definition is constantly adjusted. Since "incident to arrest" (e.g.,
search incident to arrest) hinges on definition of "arrest", adjustment
to formal definition of "arrest" are also made pretty my constantly
(although there is a clear line of defining cases). But these are
formalistic distinctions, not common speech. I generally agree with the
inclusive/exclusive distinction, but I continue to argue for multiple
levels of exclusivity. By some definitions, an "arrest" requires
processing--as Dave Wilton points out, he was asked for both "arrested"
and "detained" lists, because, under ordinary circumstances, people who
have never been processed or "entered into the system" don't need to say
that they have been arrested (on the other hand, people who have been
formally charged, with the record expunged later, may still have to
answer the question "Have you ever been arrested?" in the affirmative).
So, under some definition, it's likely Zimmerman has been arrested,
while under others he has not. His detention falls somewhere in the
middle of the exclusivity scale. I do not know, however, if he has ever
been "processed"--since his mugshot was made available, that's a strong
suggestion that he has, in which case, he most certainly has been
arrested but not charged.

I am also wondering if there is a number of levels for "being charged".
What seems to pass for "being charged" in the news is actually having
been formally indicted. Otherwise, any "moving violation" can be
described as a "charge"--oddly enough, without an arrest (but with a
brief seizure), in most cases (DUI/DWI being an exception).

Eventually we may get back to the "tomato is a fruit" line once again.

     VS-)

On 4/3/2012 3:27 PM, Dave Wilton wrote:
> Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed) defines "arrest" as:
>
> "1. A seizure or forcible restraint. 2. The taking or keeping of a person in
> custody by legal authority, esp. in response to a criminal charge; specif.,
> the apprehension of someone for the purpose of securing the administration
> of the law, esp. of bringing that person before a court."
>
> So in legal circles there is both a general sense and a specific one related
> to being charged with a crime.
>
> What does the AP Stylebook say? (I no longer have one in my possession.) It
> could very well be that journos are advised to keep to the narrow sense in
> order to avoid libel suits by people taken into custody but never charged.
>
> And for what it's worth, the last time I underwent a background check for a
> security clearance, the powers-that-be distinguished between being
> "arrested" and "being detained," requiring me to tell them whether either I
> had ever been either (in my case, yes to "being detained"). But that dual
> language was undoubted chosen to ensure that those being investigate were
> complete in their answers.

On 4/3/2012 3:17 PM, Baker, John wrote:
>          I would say that Zimmerman was arrested briefly, then released without charge.  From Black's Law Dictionary (the leading American law dictionary):
>
> arrest, n. (14c) 1. A seizure or forcible restraint. 2. The taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, esp. in response to a criminal charge; specif., the apprehension of someone for the purpose of securing the administration of the law, esp. of bringing that person before a court. - arrest, vb.
> "The question of what constitutes an arrest is a difficult one. On one end of the spectrum, it seems apparent that detention accompanied by handcuffing, drawn guns, or words to the effect that one is under arrest qualifies as an 'arrest' and thus requires probable cause. At the other end, a simple questioning on the street will often not rise to the level of an arrest. Somewhere in between lie investigative detentions at the stationhouse.... " Charles H. Whitebread, Criminal Procedure § 3.02, at 61 (1980).
>
>
>          Similarly, in Victor's example, I would certainly say that the kid was arrested, even if the arrest was only pretextual and for the purpose of scaring him.  The additional paperwork steps to which Victor refers are usually called booking the suspect/detainee.
>
>
> John Baker
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Victor Steinbok
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:43 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Re: "arrest" vs. "charge"
>
> You're right... sort of
> There are also various attempts to distinguish between detained, seized
> and arrested. Some have legal justification, some are just wind.
>
> He was most certainly detained--he was picked up, put in the vehicle,
> cuffed, then brought to the precinct. Just being stopped and unable to
> leave qualifies for seizure, I believe. But was he arrested? Well, it's
> not entirely clear. It's quite common to refer to "arrest" if someone's
> been picked up and restrained, which clearly happened here. But,
> suppose, cops pick up a kid just to scare him, handcuff him, place him
> in the car, drive around the block, then release him. Was the kid
> arrested? I doubt anyone would say that he was. So what would be the
> difference between that situation and Mr. Z? Being charged is easy--you
> need a special document from someone other than the arresting officer
> and clearance from above. From what we know from this story, several
> people in the police department wanted him charged, but they were
> overrulled--so he was NOT charged.
>
> But not the frequent difference in language that is usually glossed
> over--one is arrested "on suspicion of" murder or some other crime, but
> he is charged "with" that crime. So one clearly be arrested and even
> accused--by the police--without being charged.
>
> But it is possible to have an extended detention without actual arrest.
> Arrest is a formal procedure--all sorts of paperwork to fill out,
> fingerprints, etc. Mugshot is just the first step. Once the paperwork
> has been filled out, you've been arrested--merely having your mugshot
> taken is not quite enough, according to some definitions. The point of
> processing is important--if you've been processed as having been
> arrested for some cause, you have to report that on every form that asks
> if you've ever been arrested. If you were merely detained, you don't
> have to report it--you have not been formally arrested.
>
> So if no paperwork was filled out to process the arrest, Z has not been
> arrested. He might have been detained on suspicion of homicide, but not
> arrested. It's also possible that he indeed WAS arrested, but then
> released without having to spend a night in jail--yet another very loose
> measure which people think of when they think of an arrest. So the best
> we can do is that, by some measures, he's been arrested, but it's quite
> likely that no formal arrest was ever made. If you think of all those
> black-and-white movies that use lines like "You're under arrest!" they
> mean absolutely nothing--just saying that you're under arrest does not
> mean that you've been arrested.
>
> Does this make any sense or am I just running around in circles?
>
>       VS-)
>
> On 4/3/2012 1:30 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>> It must be me. For over a week, highly-paid newspeople and others have been
>> insisting that George Zimmerman was "never arrested" by police.
>>
>> Then, a police video surfaced that shows Z. beiin custody at the police
>> station with his wrists cuffed behind his back. .
>>
>> In fact, CNN has enhanced the video to help answer the question of whether
>> Z. had a head injury.  Immediately after two minutes of discussing said
>> video and enhancement, another journalist informs us that controversy still
>> swirls around the issue of why Z. "was not arrested."
>>
>> What is wrong with these people/ me?  Isn't the issue that Z. was released
>> without being *charged*?  He sure looked like a guy under arrest to me.
>>
>> This makes even "brokered-convention"-gate look trivial by comparison.
>>
>> JL
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org