How Long Can Someone Be Held in Jail on a Warrant

[matt4200]

@CBG - Another poster on this thread already posted it, but here:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/825.html

[Disagreeable]

I'm not seeing the issue here. He was brought in on a weekend for charges that he appeared in court on Tuesday for. He was then ROR'd and held for 48 on the next charge.

[cbg]

And you've read paragraph 2, Matt?

[matt4200]

Disagreeable - He was brought in on Saturday and Did not appear in court for his warrant which he was arrested for on Saturday until Thursday. This would be 5 days according to CA PC 825 which does include Saturdays in the calculation of time. Which is about 72 hours past the 48 hours prescribed by law allowed to hold someone, especially for a traffic case.

He was arrested and booked for both charges and not brought to court for the traffic warrant for 5 calculated court days Sunday not included in those 5 days. That's the issue

Cbg - Yes I have, thoroughly, are you seeing something in paragraph 2 that I'm not? Court was in session all of those days we've triple checked and the magistrate was there all of those days.

[cbg]

That's NOT what you said in the OP.

As long as you keep changing your story when you don't get the answers you want, no one is going to take you seriously.

- - - Updated - - -

My question involves criminal law for the state of: CA

My friend was arrested on Saturday January 11th at 8am for a felony, but at the time of arrest he also had a misdemeanor traffic warrant so he was also booked for that.

When he went to court on Tuesday the 14th for the felony the judge ordered that he be released on his own Recognizance and to come back in two months.

But instead of being released he was remanded into custody and sent to Twin Towers jail for the traffic ticket warrant which was included in his initial arrest and bail amount.

I was told by the public defender that they could only hold him for 48 court hours (Monday &Tuesday) by law before they would need to release him from custody and no longer had legal veracity to hold him is this true?

Because he was held in Twin Towers on Tuesday, then Wednesday where they strip searched and demeaned him numerous times, and on Wednesday he was moved to the court loading area but then the deputies told him that the traffic court he had to go to was too far and he was the only one going so they weren't taking him that day.

Then on Wednesday night 11pm he was put in a transport room to be shipped off to Wayside Jail which is part of the LA county jail, but you would need to be sent back to Twin Towers first to be released or even just to be transported to court, so he asked to speak to the Sergeant and/or Watch commander because he was told that the law said that either he was to be released or he definitely would have court in the morning. When he asked this he was left alone in the cell for 1-2 hours, then a deputy came and said so you're the troublemaker? You're going to the hole for 30 days.

Upon hearing this he began to tear up and ask earnestly to speak to the Sergeant or Watch Commander, but was refused, and when he refused to go without speaking to a supervisor he was struck on the back of the head with a flashlight and carried by deputies to the "hole".

The next day Thursday the 16th he was poured water on while in his cell in the "hole" and told he was being brought to court for his traffic warrant, he was brought to court and asked by the court deputy why he didn't show up the previous day he tried to tell the deputy, but the deputy only gave a sour look.

My question is: How long can you be held by law in CA on a warrant such as this (non-DUI), and was all of this legal or not.

Thank You for taking the time to read this

Q4P

[matt4200]

CBG - Read my OP thoroughly I have not changed my story one bit.

He went to court for the Felony Tuesday the 14th and was not brought to traffic court for the traffic warrant untilThursday the 16th and he was arrested for both on Saturday the 11th.

[cbg]

Give it up, Matt. Go find yourself another playground. I don't believe a word you're saying.

[free9man]

Disagreeable - He was brought in on Saturday and Did not appear in court for his warrant which he was arrested for on Saturday until Thursday. This would be 5 days according to CA PC 825 which does include Saturdays in the calculation of time. Which is about 72 hours past the 48 hours prescribed by law allowed to hold someone, especially for a traffic case.

Wrong, thanks for playing. He was seen on Tuesday for his arrest pursuant to the warrant. You stated he was remanded into custody on the warrant. That means the judge addressed the warrant arrest. He had him held until the court that had issued the warrant could see him, which is perfectly legal.

[cdwjava]

For Pete's sake! PC 825 involves the filing of a complaint and arraignment! Unless this warrant was for an offense for which he has not been arraigned, it won't apply. Since it appears (by what you say) to have been issued as a failure to pay the fines, then he has already been sentenced and no NEW arraignment is necessary. As such, the same 48 hour rule does not apply.

And, even if it did, YOU can do NOTHING about it! All YOU can do is help him find an attorney who can make the proper motion for his release ... though that may not be an option, anyway.

So, if you want to help, hire him an attorney. We are not going to continue beating our head against a wall here.

Tell your friends to stop breaking the law and to honor their obligations and this will not happen to them!

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, thanks for playing. He was seen on Tuesday for his arrest pursuant to the warrant. You stated he was remanded into custody on the warrant. That means the judge addressed the warrant arrest. He had him held until the court that had issued the warrant could see him, which is perfectly legal.

Good point!

The judge arraigned him on the felony and allowed an O/R release pending a preliminary hearing or other proceeding, but held him over to answer on the warrant - likely, because it involved another court and was not an arraignment for a new offense.

[matt4200]

CBG - it doesn't matter if you believe me or not.

I'm asking for something that doesn't require you to believe in me, just a simple answer with a possible Supreme Court citation.

Free9man - I was in court the judge did not address the issue of the warrant at all. The sheriffs dept kept him in custody I used the word remanded because it felt appropriate, but the first judge authorized his release and gave him a court date to come back in March.

Cdwjava - The WARRANT was not for Failing to pay any fines, the warrant was for the 14601.1 misdemeanor charge he failed to appear in court to be arraigned for that charge and as such a warrant was issued and an Arraignment was necessary and therefore the 48 hour rule does apply.

The FTP was why his license was suspended in the first place prior to him even being cited for the 14601.1 does that male sense?