How Long Can Someone Be Held in Jail on a Warrant

[cdwjava]

Okay, ONCE MORE, YOU cannot help him! If you want to help him, HIRE AN ATTORNEY!

As was pointed out, if it was for a new offense, he was arraigned and bound over on the warrant. Heck, there may be some other holds in place, too ... you do realize that the jail and even the court doesn't answer to you, right?!

There's nothing to argue about here. Even on the off chance that we all agreed with you that the state is abusing this man's rights, it means NOTHING! He would still need an attorney to further any claim. YOU can do nothing!

So, we're done here.

[free9man]

Oh, so now you were in court? How many more little bits and pieces are going to come out in your little story?

Let's assume that you were to swing in there like a superhero and get him released for what you think is a violation. Guess what can happen as soon as the soles of his shoes hit the pavement, they can re-arrest him on the warrant.

I'm with cdwjava, it's time to stop wasting time on your drivel.

[Disagreeable]

As I told you, he was timely processed for the arrest and then timely processed on the warrant after ROR'd for the second crime. I don't see an issue here and others agree.

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?

[matt4200]

cdwjava - Lawyers cost money, money we don't have, this is why I am coming here to this forum to get a specific statute, court cases, precedence and all the information I can get on my own and then when he goes to the PD in March to present everything to him including precedence it will be much more likely that the PD might give useful information or help him especially if he has all the facts in front of him including SC cases and what the law prescribes.

Free9man - if you look at my other posts in this thread you will see where I previously stated I was in court with him, his brother and his dad. I'm not adding things in or making things up.

He was already arraigned for the warrant on Thursday the 16th have you read nothing on here?? Once you are arraigned for a warrant it's cleared from the system within an hour or two by deputies at the court or the court clerk.

- - - Updated - - -

Disagreeable - It's not 48 hours for each thing you are arrested for, unless it's an out of county warrant which it was not.

It's 48 hours total, maybe you could stretch it to 72 arguably but the language of PC 825 is pretty clear about the time limit from arrest to magistrate which does not exclude Saturdays as being counted in the time limit.

[free9man]

as such a warrant was issued and an Arraignment was necessary and therefore the 48 hour rule does apply.

You state this as fact, please support.

cdwjava - Lawyers cost money, money we don't have, this is why I am coming here to this forum to get a specific statute, court cases, precedence and all the information I can get on my own and then when he goes to the PD in March to present everything to him including precedence it will be much more likely that the PD might give useful information or help him especially if he has all the facts in front of him including SC cases and what the law prescribes.

So he has a lawyer then? Let them do their job. Go on Google. Go on Google Scholar. Go to the local law library.

if you look at my other posts in this thread you will see where I previously stated I was in court with him, his brother and his dad. I'm not adding things in or making things up.

Sorry, missed it in all your other ramblings.

He was already arraigned for the warrant on Thursday the 16th have you read nothing on here?? Once you are arraigned for a warrant it's cleared from the system within an hour or two by deputies at the court or the court clerk.

Really? You know this for a fact to occur every time as a matter of law?

It's not 48 hours for each thing you are arrested for, unless it's an out of county warrant which it was not.

You state this as a fact. Please support.

It's 48 hours total, maybe you could stretch it to 72 arguably but the language of PC 825 is pretty clear about the time limit from arrest to magistrate which does not exclude Saturdays as being counted in the time limit.

While Saturdays are not listed in PC 825, courts have held that they are not counted because well...the courts aren't open on Saturdays.

You've made several comments regarding legal issues as though they are facts. If you can support them, that means you've researched the issue. If you've researched the issue...you know how to find your answers.

[Disagreeable]

Well matt, if that is your contention, I suggest you contact the LA County 48 hour "Court Appearance Flight Team" that is responsible for flying prisoners all over LA County via helicopter to make court appearances for all their crimes within the 48 hour window you claim exists.

I'm going to throw ol' matt a bone. This case conveys someone in already in custody cannot be arrested for something, when they are already under arrest. So matt ol' buddy, his 48 started after the Tuesday hearing was over.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=en&as_sdt=4,5

[jk]

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.

then why did you say it was for a FTP. That is a failure to pay. A failure to appear would be a FTA.

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?

so he still had the outstanding charges that were behind the failure to pay. So far he has what, 4 or 5 open prosecutions currently?

[matt4200]

Jk - Failure to pay a traffic ticket in this situation is not a criminal offense, the case is closed for the outstanding traffic tickets that occurred prior to him getting his license suspended and this whole mess happening, but his license is still suspended by the collections people who got a clerk or judge to sign off on putting a hold in his license.

I said FTP because that's why his license was suspended in the first place and why he got a 14601.1 ticket which he FTA'd for.

Free9man - The warrant was issued because he failed to appear for arraignment, so why would arraignment for the original traffic charge not be necessary?

Clearing warrants is the duty of the courthouse issuing such a warrant, if not done it would lead to an unlawful arrest, though accidental it's unlawful and it would come back to bite whoever forgot to clear it after the individual appeared in custody in court.

If I had my answers I wouldn't be posting on forums. I'm not well experienced in researching as many of the people on here are I'm simply someone looking for a little help.

Disagreeable - that case is involving a Parolee and it says that they can at any time keep parolees in custody because they are technically prisoners still until their sentence is done. It further states that they tried to charge him with two crimes with the same facts.

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand... So I'm not seeing what the point of the link was sorry

- - - Updated - - -

I have researched and there are these:

PC 825 -"the defendant
shall in all cases be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary
delay, and, in any event, within 48 hours after his or her arrest,
excluding Sundays and holidays."
PC 145 - There was willful delay
PC 147 - Wrongful harm was done, by hitting the accused while in custody and dragging him to the hole simply for requesting to speak to a superior officer or the watch commander about his PC 825 rights.
And also PC 827.1 which is what they should have done (cite and release)

[cdwjava]

<Sigh>. Even assuming you have all the info and answers YOU cannot do anything about it. YOU cannot file a habeus motion, so this is much ado over nothing.

Either help him get an attorney or let it go. Ranting or arguing about what you think happened or believe the law to be does precisely zip for your pal.

[Disagreeable]

matt you entirely missed the basic premise in the case law. YOU CANNOT ARREST SOMEONE ALREADY UNDER ARREST. Therefore after he was released for the non warrant charge he was again arrested on the warrant.