A "Person of Interest" Can't Be Arrested
The tragic murder of Yale medical student, Annie Le, has now resulted in the brief detention of a so-called "person of interest," Raymond Clark, III. The New Haven police went out of their way to label Clark a "person of interest" rather than a "suspect." They seem to deny that he has been "arrested." I understand why they choose to use this semantic slight of hand, but the Constitution does not recognize the involuntary detention of a person of interest. He has either been arrested or he hasn't. If he was in fact taken away in handcuffs and compelled to go to the police station, he was arrested. Under the Constitution, in order to be arrested, there must be probable cause. Probable cause means that the police suspect Clark of the murder. If they did not suspect him -- that is if he was not a suspect -- then his arrest would be unlawful. It is true that search warrants have been issued for his home and for bodily evidence. He may indeed be compelled to provide hair, blood, saliva and other samples. But he may not be arrested, handcuffed and taken to police premises to provide these samples, unless there is probable cause to arrest him, or unless he refuses to comply with the warrants.
So, there are only two possible alternatives: 1) The police do regard Clark as a suspect and have presented the judge with sufficient evidence to justify a probable cause arrest, and they are using the term "person of interest" in order to keep their options open with the public; or 2) Clark is indeed only a person of interest and there is no probable cause against him, thus making his arrest unconstitutional, and the evidence gathered from him subject to suppression.
I understand the motivations of the New Haven police in keeping the issue vague. Were they subsequently to come up with a better suspect, they would not want his trial lawyer to be able to point to the fact that the police originally suspected another man. That's all fine and good, but it doesn't satisfy the constitutional requirement of probable cause before a suspect can be subjected to a full blown arrest with handcuffs, even for a brief period of time.
I hope the police get the right man and that this horrible crime is solved. But the public has the right to know what the Constitution commands when it comes to arresting and detaining "suspects" or "persons of interest."
Disgrasian: The Murder of a Young Asian Woman You've Never Heard Of
As much as the details of Felicia Lee's life and death would seem sensational enough for widespread media coverage, unlike Annie Le's murder, Lee's has largely failed to capture the public's imagination.
Alan Dershowitz: Raymond Clark III Arrested, But Many Questions Remain
It would be a sad day in America if anyone deemed by the police to be a "person of interest" -- which could almost include anyone -- could be handcuffed, and hauled down to the police station.
Alafair Burke: In Real Life, Violence Hits Close to Home...And Work
Annie Le's death reminds us that as much as we fear the stranger on a city street, the predator could be a friend, neighbor, or the seemingly harmless lab technician down the hall.
Richard Levin: What Happened at Yale and the Dark Side of the Human Soul
It is frightening that a member of our own community might have committed this terrible crime. But we must not let this incident shatter our trust in one another.
Person of interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
So very sad for this beautiful and intelligent young woman, my heart breaks for their families.
Alan Dershowitz is a smart fellow. technically.
He knows how to play the law against justice. He helped get OJ Simpson and Claus von Bülow get away with murder. He represented Leona Helmsley, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, in cases where great harm was caused to others.
He is very successful.
Sunny Von Bulow did not die. She went into a coma and remained in a coma until she died in 2008. Also, Claus Von Bulow was found not guilty in a second trial. So, Dershowitz did not help Von Bulow get away with "murder". He ensured that an innocent person did not go to jail for something he didn't do. You should be thankful for people like Dershowitz as they work to ensure that the State does not overstep its bounds.
What is the definitive case cite on this?
There is rarely a case exactly on point for anything.
There are hundreds of thousands of on-point cases in his support. What he cites is far more basic: the United States Constitution; in particular, the Fourth Amendment. See, http://cas
It is my understanding that the reason that Clark was handcuffed was to keep him from compromising DNA evidence that may be under his fingernails. Once the necessary samples were collected, Clark was released, but under very heavy surveillance. The handcuffing was part of the on-body search warrant.
I read that he was released "into the custody of his attorney", which is an entirely different thing. I think he was arrested.
He was handcuffed to preserve evidence? That is the oddest effort to preserve evidence I have ever heard of. Are you sure that that was the reason he was handcuffed? Or are you speculating? Was he handcuffed in the back -- as is usually the case? That would mean he was sitting on the "evidence" in the police car. Not such a great way to preserve it, is it? Could they not have taken the evidence where he was arrested, if preservation was the goal? They could have provide whatever technical support personnel at the scene of the arrest. I know the crime was odious, but I wonder if your reaction to a person of interest is influence by the nature of the crime.
The first time I heard the term person of interest was in the second wave of terrorist attacks on America shortly after 9/11. Contrary to Dick Cheney's assertions that his administration kept America safe since 9/11, the anthrax terrorist has never even been identified, much less captured. At least we identified OBL as the 9/11 mastermind, even though Cheney and company never caught him either.
They used the term POI against the government scientist they suspected of being involved with the anthrax attacks, but he was very saavy in using media to get the government to back off of him.
Many at that time (I don't think the Patriot Act was enacted yet) asked what a POI was from a legal point of view.
What it was was proof that the emporer had no clothes; that the Cheney administration was totally unprepared to defend America, did not know how to defend America (as evidenced by a second attack immediately after the first) and so had to pervert the justice system to calm the nation's fears at this very uncertain and frightening time.
The perversion of the US legal system was the only weapon the Cheney administration had to protect Americans from terrorists in this country and his inept showmanship is the reason why, 8 years later, OBL still mocks us from the cave and we still have to take our shoes off to board an airplane.
Couldn't they get a warrant to take him into custody as a material witness? The Feds do it a lot when it comes to investigating white collar crimes.
They had plenty of evidence to take him to the police station. The guy was swiping cards and on camera as he was moving from room to room killing someone and hiding her body. I don't know what kind of evidence is needed anymore if that isn't enough probable cause to search someone.
That's true, but if there was so much evidence, I think Prof. Deshowitz's point is that he should have been "arrested" and the Police Department should have called it that, been prepared to arraign him promptly, which is he right after arrest, etc.
Certainly, this is a horrible crime, but all the more reason that a person shouldn't be "arrested" for it, as Dershowitz explains an arrest, -- dragged to the station in handcuffs in front of all his neighbors, until the evidence is all in a row and sufficient to support the arrest at arraignment.
Alan-
The two words "Probable Cause" were ignored by former Air Force General, M. Hayden, when asked about the 'Search and Seizure' clause in the constitution.
Hayden said all that his agency needed to do, while tapping American citizens phones, was to 'Be Reasonable' in that illegal warrant less search.
According to Hayden, later CIA Director, the words "Probable Cause" are a mere inconvenient part of the constitution.
And none of that has seen the light of a court room, has it?
Well one problem with the police is they allow too much ambiguity with criteria for detainment and arrest. Under what grounds can you be detained and not be arrested and how does the law vary from state to state? I wish the ACLU and other civil rights organizations did more reach-out in minority and poor neighborhoods where violation are like to occur.
Tenth Amendment.
Dershowitz's article shows how awareness of the media affects pretty much of all public life in the U.S. today--including how police handle cases. It was the media more than the Constitution which determined how the case was handled including language used by the police. I live in Connecticut not far away from New Haven. In following this high-profile case, what struck me most was exceptional caution on the part of law-enforcement (which included the FBI and state police). They held back on cause on death and identification of the prime suspect--though there were leaks on these factors before they were officially reported. All in all, I think the law-enforcement authorities did a good job in both the investigation and the the public-relations, media aspects of the horrible crime. One thing they did early was stress that the killing was not random, and the Yale and New Haven communities need not fear that a serial killer was roaming around. Dershowitz does however raise important legal issues. I don't think anyone would disagree that the Constitution not the media should have the priority on the matters of law-enforcement procedure (including language, which implies status of an individual) and treatment of citizens (and others) by law-enforcement. Incidentally, the New haven police are not the first to use the term "person of interest." The N. Y. City police has used this term, and I expect it is now widely used by police departments.
At least twice I was handcuffed and not arrested. In fact the police specifically told me I was not under arrest. Once was for crowd control (?) and the other was inadvertent trespassing. In the second case I got to ride in the back of a police car (not comfy). I think they just have a protocol for bringing people into the station that requires everyone be handcuffed.
Anyway if Professor Dershowitz is correct this is widespread abuse of constitutional rights. I'll be more than happy to join in the class action.
You were arrested in my opinion.
Not so sound harsh, but your opinion is irrelevant in this case. An arrest must be declared followed by a reading of the Miranda rights. So, if this did not occur, then bmull wasn't arrested.
The New Haven Police threw my friends wife on the ground, threatened to kick her teeth in, searched her, and then arrested her all for walking in the street. I told the police man that hitting a woman is more of a crime then walking in the street, but New haven Police are like commies. They don't believe in our free system of values.
Obviously, you are leaving something out of your comments. She had to be doing something more than "walking in the street".
Did they say they were arresting her for "walking in the street" or is this the only way your "friend" cares to describe it.
You don't know the police very well.
Or the friend has left something out of the story. There is definitely more to the story.
Since the user's name is "bigfro" chnaces are better than average that the woman in question is black.
In many jurisdictions that is "crime" enough to warrant such treatment.
When all is said and done it will be interesting to hear about the background of Richard Clark III. I am also wondering if the New Haven police would be so tight lipped and careful if "the person of interest" was a lowly maintenance worker or a custodian.
Richard Clark is, in fact, a lowly maintenance worker.
Of couse, now they have DNA evidence, which proves his guilt ..Of course there must be a trial. Nowdays, with the threat of Lawsuits, the have to be SOOOOO careful about calling a person a Suspect. We rember wahat happened to Richard Jewel.
They should have been a lot more tight lipped than they were. If this guy was the perpetrator, the main thing is to get him put in prison and not to jeopardize the outcome of the trial by offering procedural grounds to appeal based on sloppy handling of the situation pre "arrest."
I've been trying not to follow this, but this article and huffpost do a great service in educating "we the people"... thanks very much for the continuing efforts
“he may not be arrested, handcuffed and taken to police premises to provide these samples, unless there is probable cause to arrest him, or unless he refuses to comply with the warrants.”
As far as I am aware, the police are not psychic.
Therefore, suspicion must be physically converted into proof, at the earliest opportunity.
If uninvolved, willing assistance should only serve to speed elimination, aid the investigation, and assist apprehension of the “at large” perpetrator.
The withholding of assistance is not a viable option, unless protection by the law is universally surrendered.
In other words. Aren’t rights usually accompanied by obligations? If the obligations are unacceptable, then be prepared to forego the rights.
And your point is? Or more specifically, where do you disagree with what Dersh said.
Do you understand the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution? These rights are not accompanied by ANY obligations - they are "certain unalienable rights" as described in the document. You don't have to do anything to get them, other than to be in the United States.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
