High court says convicts lack right to DNA testing

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jun 18, 3:27 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Thursday that a convicted rapist has no constitutional right to test biological evidence used at his trial in Alaska years earlier, leaving it to the states to decide when prisoners get access to genetic evidence that might prove their innocence.

In a 5-4 vote, with the conservative justices in the majority, the court said it would not second-guess states or force them routinely to look again at criminal convictions.

William Osborne, convicted in a brutal assault on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago, sued for the right to test the contents of a blue condom the victim says was used by her attacker. A federal appeals court said he had a right to conduct the test.

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.

Testing so far has led to the exoneration of 240 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes, according to the Innocence Project, which works to free people who were wrongly convicted.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, said the states have moved quickly to grapple with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing.

“To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response,” Roberts said.

The chief justice said that new technology that was not available at trial should not throw fairly won convictions into doubt. “The dilemma is how to harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice,” he said.

Dissenting liberal justices and advocates for prisoners who seek genetic testing complained that the court is penalizing a small group of inmates who lack access to a simple test that would conclusively show their innocence, or reaffirm their guilt.

“The fact that nearly all the states have now recognized some postconviction right to DNA evidence makes it more, not less, appropriate to recognize a limited federal right to such evidence in cases where litigants are unfairly barred from obtaining relief in state court,” Justice John Paul Stevens said.

Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of The Innocence Project who argued Osborne’s case at the Supreme Court, said the ruling probably would not affect the vast majority of inmates seeking DNA testing.

But, Neufeld said, “There is no question that a small group of innocent people — and it is a small group — will languish in prison because they can’t get access to the evidence.”

The Obama administration, picking up the argument first made by the Bush administration, urged the court to reject the appeals court ruling and insist that inmates at least swear under oath to their innocence before being given access to the evidence. The federal DNA testing law has such a requirement.

In some states, laws limit testing to capital crimes or rule out after-the-fact tests for people who confess.

The woman in Alaska was raped, beaten with an ax handle, shot in the head and left for dead in a snow bank near Anchorage International Airport. The condom that was found nearby was used in the assault, she said.

The woman, who is white, identified Osborne, who is black, as one of her attackers. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly incriminated him. Osborne himself described the assault in detail when he admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004.

In many exoneration cases, eyewitnesses picked out the wrong man, often with the victim of one race incorrectly identifying someone of a different color.

Osborne’s lawyer passed up advanced DNA testing at the time of his trial, fearing it could conclusively link him to the crime. A less-refined test by the state showed that the semen did not belong to other suspects but could be from Osborne, as well as about 15 percent of all African-American men.

Osborne is awaiting sentencing on another conviction, a robbery he committed after his parole.

The case is District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 08-6.

Court to rule on federal sex offenders law

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of a federal law that permits sex offenders to be kept behind bars after they complete their prison terms.

The justices, acting Monday, say they will consider the Obama administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that invalidated the law.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled in January that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing for indefinite commitment of people who are considered “sexually dangerous.”

In April, Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice’s order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration’s appeal.

The challenge to the law was brought by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but the government determined that there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.

Civil commitment was authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President George W. Bush signed in July 2006. The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.

The case will be argued in the court’s next term, which begins in October.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.

Court rules for defendants on crime lab reports

Associated Press via Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports on illegal drugs and other evidence used at trial.

The court on Thursday ruled 5-4 for a defendant who was convicted of cocaine trafficking, partly because of crime lab analysis.

Luis Melendez-Diaz challenged lab analysis that confirmed cocaine was in plastic bags found in the car he was riding in. Rather than accept the report, Melendez-Diaz said he should be allowed to question the lab analyst about testing methods, how the evidence was preserved and other issues.

Massachusetts courts rejected his arguments.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the high court, said Melendez-Diaz has a constitutional right to confront the lab analyst.

Court says strip search of child illegal

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer – 4 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school’s strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

The court ruled on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding, who lives in Safford, in rural eastern Arizona.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

The high court, however, said the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the school district could be held liable.

A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.

The school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse’s office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.

A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn’t violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was “an invasion of constitutional rights” and that Wilson could be found personally liable.

The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.

Border agents celebrate homecoming

INVASION USA

Posted: February 17, 2009
8:31 pm Eastern

 

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

 Former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean left their cells in solitary confinement to reunite with their families in El Paso, Texas, today.

“He said, ‘I love you.’ And he just embraced me,” Monica Ramos said on Fox News’ Glenn Beck television show today in the first interview following their release.

After serving two years in federal prison in solitary confinement for shooting a fleeing Mexican drug smuggler who had brought 750 pounds of marijuana into the U.S., Ramos and Compean are being released into home confinement until March 20. The news came only two weeks after the Federal Bureau of Prisons told WND they could be eligible to finish sentences at home.

The Bureau of Prisons has instructed them to wear ankle bracelets and refrain from speaking to the press until their official release date.

“It was wonderful,” Ramos said of her exciting day. “It’s gone by pretty fast, so we can only hope the next 33 days go as fast.”

Ramos said their children are “extremely excited” about seeing their father.

“They had a couple of minutes with their father, here,” she said. “It’s really overwhelming for them. They finally hugged their dad, and they know it’s real. In time, I think we’ll begin the healing process.”

She said her husband looked relieved when she first saw him in the airport.

“He just looked around, just very appreciative, looking around and just absorbing the environment that he was in.”

Patty Compean told the Glenn Beck television show that her family needed time to spend with Jose before participating in interviews.

“They’ve been in solitary confinement without any human contact except for the guards and visitors for two years,” Patty Compean told WND when she first learned of the commutation. “Things have changed. Jose’s been gone for two years. That’s a lot to take in.”

Several media personalities asked to witness the homecoming, including Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, but Patty said her family is not ready for the crowd.

“Everybody has contributed in one way or another to this,” she told WND. “Honestly, at this point, I’d love to have people there, but at the same time, I want to have that moment for us. It’s been two years.”

Ramos’s attorney, David Botsford, said the families are still waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court on the cases.

“We’ve asked the Supreme Court to review the convictions on the remaining counts that the Fifth Circuit had not set aside because it’s our goal to vindicate these gentlemen entirely and get them back on the job with law enforcement , which is what their dreams and their goals and their careers have been.” 

Beck asked why Ramos would ever consider returning to law enforcement positions when the government “sold him down the river.”

“Well, he may not trust his government, but he loves his country,” Botsford replied. “He wants to serve, as he has done with honor and distinction in the past. And that’s what his career aspirations are and hopefully we’ll get them both back to that spot if that’s what they so desire.”

In the interview with Beck, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, summarized a number of falsehoods Congress had been told about the border agents’ case.

“We were told that these two border agents went out that day to shoot an illegal, which is an absolute lie,” he said. “We were also told that they knew that the drug dealer was unarmed. That is a lie. They both believed him to be armed. But, most importantly, the U.S. attorney’s office told us … that the drug dealer didn’t bring in drugs a second time. … I figured out that was a lie, too.”

He continued, “Both these individuals were political prisoners. We want to get to the bottom of what the involvement of the Mexican government was in prosecuting these two guys. “

Poe said he believes that there’s a real problem on both sides of the border and that this was the only case where the U.S. attorney’s office went on a “nationwide Madison Avenue PR stunt” to justify prosecution.

“It just seems like there’s a rat in the room,” Poe said. “And we want to get rid of it.”

Supreme court to decide case on school strip search

By James Vicini – Fri Jan 16, 3:08 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether a public school violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old student by conducting a strip search of her for ibuprofen.

The school argued in its appeal that the Constitution allowed a strip search of a student suspected of having prescription-strength ibuprofen in violation of its policy that prohibited medications on campus without permission.

School officials in Safford, Arizona, ordered the search in 2003 of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade. Following an assistant principal’s orders, a school nurse had Redding remove her clothes, including her bra, and shake her underwear to see if she was hiding ibuprofen, a common painkiller.

School officials did not find ibuprofen, which is found in over-the-counter medications like Advil and Motrin. Higher doses require a prescription.

The strip search had been prompted by an unverified tip from another girl who had Redding‘s school planner and some ibuprofen pills. She claimed Redding had given her the pills.

Redding denied it and an initial search of her backpack and pockets did not turn up any ibuprofen. The assistant principal then ordered the strip search to be done in front of the nurse and his administrative assistant, both women.

Redding said she was embarrassed, scared and about to cry. She said she felt humiliated and violated by the strip search.

A federal appeals court ruled the school and school officials violated the U.S. Constitution‘s Fourth Amendment right that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

It said alleged ibuprofen possession was “an infraction that poses an imminent danger to no one.” Instead of forcing Redding to disrobe, school officials could have kept her in the principal’s office until a parent arrived or could have sent her home.

The appeals court also ruled the assistant principal may be held liable for damages for the search.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the school argued that the ruling has alarmed administrators and teachers around the country.

The decision “places student safety and school order at risk by impairing the ability of school officials to effectively carry out their custodial responsibility,” it said.

Redding’s lawyers opposed the appeal.

“A school official simply cannot order a strip search any time a frightened student points an accusatory finger at another student,” they said.

If the school wins, strip searches could become as prevalent as “the common practice of students tattling on each other,” her lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union said.

The case could he heard by the justices in April, with a decision likely by the end of June, a court spokeswoman said.

(Editing by Vicki Allen)

 

Court Reinstates Washington Murder Conviction

The Associated Press, Wednesday January 21, 2009

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has reinstated the murder conviction of the driver in a gang-related, drive-by shooting that horrified Seattle in 1994.

By a 6-3 vote, the court on Wednesday reversed a federal appeals court that had thrown out the second-degree murder conviction of Cesar Sarausad II.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned the conviction because of unclear jury instructions. But the high court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said there was “no evidence of ultimate juror confusion.”

“Rather, the jury simply reached a unanimous decision that the state had proved Sarausad’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” Thomas wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice David Souter said an uncertain instruction from the trial judge merged with a “confounding prosecutorial argument” that included a “clearly erroneous statement of law.”

“In these circumstances, jury confusion is all but inevitable and jury error the reasonable likelihood,” wrote Souter, who was joined in his opinion by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Sarausad was convicted for his role as the driver in the shooting that killed a teenage girl outside a Seattle high school.

Sarausad was a 19-year-old freshman at the University of Washington at the time of the shooting. He drove the car from which Brian Ronquillo shot and killed 16-year-old Melissa Fernandes. She had nothing to do with the gang rivalry that led to the shooting.

Ronquillo was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 52 years in prison. Sarausad got a 27-year sentence.

Sarausad admitted being the driver but denied knowing that Ronquillo had a gun, much less that he was planning to kill anyone.

The jury instructions at issue concerned whether, to be convicted of second-degree murder, Sarausad had to know that Ronquillo intended to use a gun and that someone could die as a result.

The case is Waddington v. Sarausad, 07-772.

 

Court sides with police officers in search case

The Associated Press, Wednesday January 21, 2009

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police officers in Utah who searched a suspect’s home without a warrant cannot be sued for violating his constitutional rights.

In ruling unanimously for five officers attached to the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force, the court also abandoned a rigid, two-step test that it adopted in 2001 to guide judges in assessing alleged violations of constitutional rights.

Trial and appellate judges “should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion” in evaluating such claims, Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court.

Under the 2001 ruling, courts first had to determine whether an action amounts to a violation of a constitutional right and then decide whether the public official, often a police officer, should be immune from the civil lawsuit.

Officials can’t be held liable in situations where it is not clearly established that their actions violated someone’s constitutional rights.

The case grew out of a search of the home of Afton Callahan of Millard County, Utah, in 2002.

An informant contacted police to tell them he had arranged to purchase drugs from Callahan at Callahan’s trailer home.

Wearing a microphone provided by police, the informant entered the trailer and signaled police that a deal had been made. They entered the trailer without a warrant and arrested Callahan on charges of possession of methamphetamines.

Utah courts ruled that the evidence that was seized from Callahan’s home could not be used against him. Other courts have allowed prosecutions to go forward under similar circumstances.

Callahan later sued the officers for violating his constitutional rights. A federal judge ruled the officers could not be sued because there is disagreement in the courts over whether the search was illegal.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver said the lawsuit could proceed because the officers should have known that people have a right in their home to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The high court said Wednesday that the officers are entitled to immunity from Callahan’s suit.

The case is Pearson v. Callahan, 07-751.

 

Flight Upon Seeing Police Does Not Give Officers Probable Cause To Stop, Let Alone Arrest Individuals

 Officers from a Borough in Northeastern PA have asked us to help them determine if they can pursue and stop individuals who run away from a street corner upon seeing their police car enter the area.

 The officers report that they have not observed the individuals who flee upon seeing the police car engaging in criminal activity and that their department has not received any reports or tips from the public that the individuals have engaged in criminal acts. In addition the area of the street corner is not known for drug activity.

 We have found several PA cases pertaining to this issue.

 As is always the case, the key issue is Probable Cause (PC). You will recall from your academy training that probable cause has been defined by our courts as a requisite element of a valid arrest, consisting of the existence of facts and circumstances within one’s knowledge and of which one has reasonably trustworthy information, sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that a crime has been committed (See 267 U.S. 132).  PC can be established in many ways. It may be established on the basis of the cumulative knowledge of the investigating officers (See 380 U.S. 102); However, PC cannot be based on facts which are completely innocent in themselves (See 393 U.S. 410); Furthermore, the fact that the suspect(s) have been previously involved in similar crimes, if any have in fact been committed, is not of important value (See 393 U.S. 410); PC must be based on particular facts and not mere conclusions (See 378 U.S. 108).

 With that being said we will now delve into the cases we have discovered pertaining to the issue of Flight as an element of Probable Cause.

 * Commonwealth v. Biagini, 540 Pa. 22, 655 A. 2d 492 (1995) & In Interest of Barry W., 423 Pa. Super. 549, 621 A. 2d 669 (1993): The mere fact that a person quickens his pace upon being observed by police officers and starts to run when a police officer begins to chase him does not give rise to a reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot, and is therefore insufficient to justify even a Terry Stop (See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, (1968), absent some other factor which would give rise to criminal conduct. Thus, the court held that an anonymous tip that a male was selling drugs at a certain location, coupled with the flight of the male upon the approach of the police, without more, did not give rise to probable cause to arrest nor reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the male. The court stated: “We are unwilling, as a matter of law, to hold that an anonymous tip bearing no indication of reliability, and containing no predictions of future behavior, and unsupported by any corroborative observations by an officer, when coupled with flight, justifies a forcible Terry stop.” (See 621 A. 2d at 678).

 * Commonwealth v. Chase, 394 Pa. Super. 168, 575 A. 2d 574 (1990):  “although flight, in & of itself, does not supply probable cause to arrest, flight in combination with other factors may reasonably indicate that an individual has committed a criminal offense”.

 * In Interest of D.W., 427 Pa. Super. 629, 629 A. 2d 1387 (1993):police observation of a suspicious exchange of cash for a small packet at 2:40 a.m. in a high-crime area, coupled with an anonymous tip of drug dealing and the flight of the suspect’s companions, supported a finding of probable cause to arrest.

 * Commonwealth v. Woodson, 342 Pa. Super. 392, 493 A. 2d 78 (1985): Finding probable cause for arrest of suspect matching description of “young black man wearing a beige sweater or shirt” who evaded police and offered unsubstantiated explanation for his presence near the crime scene.

 * Commonwealth v. Phillips, 338 Pa. Super. 274, 487 A. 2d  962 (1985): Flight of companions on approach of suspect by officer supported a finding of probable cause to arrest.

 * Commonwealth v. Williams, 317 Pa. Super. 456, 464 A. 2d 411 (1983): Finding probable cause for arrest of suspect matching description of “black man with a mustache” seen near time and place of crime, who repeatedly fled upon seeing  police.

 We believe that our fellow officers in the Northeastern PA Borough should not attempt to “pursue & stop” the individuals that flee from the street corner upon seeing their police car enter the area without having some articulable reason to believe that the fleeing individuals are involved in criminal activity at the time they flee upon seeing the police car or that the fleeing individuals match the description of individuals that have been involved in criminal activity.

 However, we also believe that our fellow officers should actively observe the fleeing individuals by following after them to learn the location to which they are fleeing and to simply perform intelligence gathering as there is nothing in our laws to prevent officers from simply patrolling their jurisdictions on foot, observing activities of citizens, and making notes on their observations.

Pennsylvania Constables Have Significant Arrest Authority

 This article delves into the authority of Pennsylvania Constables to affect warrantless arrests for crimes committed in their presence. In future articles we will explore the Constables activities in the areas of Process service, Court Security, Training, Vehicle Code Enforcement, and the display of emergency lighting on Constables vehicles as well as other topics.

Contrary to the beliefs of most citizens, law enforcement officers, and even many Constables themselves, Pennsylvania Constables have full authority to make warrantless arrests for crimes in the Commonwealth.

 I stress “warrantless arrests” due to the common belief that the only function of Constables, due mostly to ignorance of the laws and court decisions pertaining to Constables, is serving arrest warrants and other documents issued by the courts.

 Most often this belief is expressed by, how should I say, the miscreants of our society? Well, however you say it, the bad guys. Usually they express this belief when they are out & about engaging in their less than honorable pursuits and observe someone in a uniform with a badge. The miscreants will stop what they are doing and look closely at the uniform in an effort to determine if the officer may be able to arrest them. Almost without fail when they determine the officer is a Constable, they say to each other “It’s just a Constable” and they go back to their misdeeds without concern.

 This perception of Constables must be corrected as sooner or later a Constable who is on his game is going come across a bad guy who honestly believes a Constable cannot arrest him without a warrant and will resist the Constable when told he is under arrest creating a very dangerous situation for the Constable & the suspect.

 In addition, Constables can be a very positive factor in law enforcement’s ever increasingly difficult job of getting the bad guys off the street; if they know and understand the authority they can exercise.

  The PA Supreme Court has noted in the case of In Re Act 147 of 1990, 528 PA 460,463 (1991) “Constables are Peace Officers charged with the conservation of the peace, and whose job it is to arrest those who have violated it; It is the Constables job to enforce the law and carry it out, just as the same is the job of District Attorneys, Sheriffs, and the police generally”.

 The arrest authority of PA Constables is defined generally in PA law in Title 13 of  the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated, commonly referred to as Purdon’s Statutes (P.S.), 45 et seq. which states: “Constables of the Commonwealth, in addition to the powers already conferred upon them, shall and may, without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of  a breach of the peace, vagrancy, riotous and disorderly conduct or drunkenness,or who may be engaged in the commission of an unlawful act tending to imperil the personal security or endanger the property of the citizens, or violating municipal ordinances, for the violation of which a fine or penalty is imposed. Any person arrested with or without a warrant, shall be entitled to trial.”

   In The case of Commonwealth v. Frombach, 420 Pa Super. 498 (1992) the PA Superior Court determined that the PA Legislature by 13 P.S. 45 et seq. (above), “Conferred on Constables the power to without warrant and upon view, arrest and commit for hearing any and all persons guilty of a breach of the peace.

 A breach of the peace has been defined generally as any of “a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. It includes not only violent acts but acts and words likely to produce violence in others” (see 310 U.S. 296, 308) In its broadest sense the term refers to any criminal offense, or at least any indictable offense (see 207 U.S. 425). Breaches of the peace have been defined by state courts as “disturbances of the public peace violative of order and decency or decorum (see 147 N.W. 2d 886,892). And as “any violation of any law enacted to preserve peace and good order” and “signifies disorderly, dangerous conduct disruptive of public peace (see 261 A. 2d 731, 739).

 In the case of Commonwealth v. Taylor, 450 Pa. Super. 583, 677 A. 2d 846 (1996)the Superior Court, citing the Constables authority to affect warrantless arrests for breaches of the peace, determined that Constables have the authority make arrests for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. (see also Commonwealth v. Corley, 507 Pa. 540,491 A.2d 829 (1985)) where the court held that a private citizen can affect an arrest when a felony has been committed and the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony.

  In further exploration of the authority of PA Constables it must be noted that in the case of Commonwealth v. McGavin, 305 Pa. Super. 528, 534, 451 A. 2d 773 (1982)the Superior Court held that the statute authorizing  Constables to make warrantless arrests, 13 P.S. 45 et seq. (above),requires that the offense for which the warrantless arrest is made be an offense that (1) is committed within view of the Constable, and (2) constitutes a breach of the peace (described above).

 In a real world scenario this seems to indicate that should a Constable observe 2 men fighting in the street, the Constable has authority to make arrests for disorderly conduct, etc., but should a Constable observe a man sitting on a sidewalk bleeding from his nose and upon investigation learns that the man was assaulted by an identified individual, the Constable should secure the scene & protect the victim from further harm and then would need to contact the law enforcement agency for the jurisdiction so that they could make the arrest on information received from the victim since the Constable did not witness the breach of the peace.

Also, in the bloody nosed victim example above, if the victim or a witness  were to point out the person(s) with whom the victim was fighting, it seems  the Constable would be authorized to detain,  not arrest, the individual(s) for investigative purposes. If the Constable decides to detain, not arrest, the accused individual(s), he would be justified in performing a pat down frisk of the individual(s) in an effort to be certain the individual(s) does  not possess dangerous weapons and he may even place the individual(s) in handcuffs while waiting for the arrival of the jurisdictions law enforcement agency (see Commonwealth v. Leet, 537 Pa. 89, 641 A. 2d 299 (1994); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968); Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 116 S. Ct. 1657 (1996); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S. Ct. 690 (1981).

 In short, based on the court’s language in the McGavin case above, it seems that a Constable has authority to make arrests for crimes in progress that he sees taking place.

 However, recall that in the Corley case the court held that “even a private citizen can effect an arrest when a felony has been committed and the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony”. Note that the court did not say that the citizen must actually observe the felony being committed. Rather, the court said the citizen can affect an arrest for a felony when the citizen reasonably believes that the person he arrests has committed the felony.

 In summation, Pennsylvania Constables are authorized to affect warrantless arrests for breaches of the peace committed in their presence and may detain for investigative purposes individuals they reasonably believe to be engaged in criminal activity.

 In addition, Constables, the same as private citizens, may affect an arrest for a felony if he reasonably believes that a felony has been committed and that the person he has arrested committed the felony.