CA7: PC to arrest doesn’t usually go stale

Probable cause to arrest doesn’t go stale like probable cause to search does. “Haldorson’s primary contention is that the information from the controlled buy was too stale three weeks later to support probable cause for an arrest. The mere passage of time does not necessarily dissipate the probable cause for an arrest. It is well-established that “there is no requirement that an offender be arrested the moment probable cause is established.” United States v. Reis, 906 F.2d 284, 289 (7th Cir. 1990) (citing Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 310, 87 S. Ct. 408, 17 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1966)).” “Our facts are nearly identical to those that the Tenth Circuit confronted in United States v. Hinson, 585 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2009).” “It is the rare case where ‘staleness’ will be relevant to the legality of a warrantless arrest. When there is a reasonable belief that someone has committed a crime, time by itself does not make the existence of that fact any less probable. Certainly, ‘[g]ood police practice often requires postponing an arrest, even after probable cause has been established, in order to place the suspect under surveillance or otherwise develop further evidence necessary to prove guilt to a jury.’ United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 431, 96 S. Ct. 820, 46 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1976 (Powell, J., concurring)).” United States v. Haldorson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31569 (7th Cir. Oct. 23, 2019).

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.