Explain the right to a phone call as pertaining to a person who has been arrested. What will be ...

1)  Answer: This right has been incorporated into the laws to prohibit individuals from being held indefinitely
without anyone knowing that they have been arrested. In those states in which the arrested person is
permitted to make telephone calls, there are considerable differences in the rights afforded the arrested
person. These rights differ as to the number of calls that may be made; to whom, how soon after the
arrest, and at whose expense they may be made; whether the calls can be monitored; and whether the
arrested person must be advised of the right to make the calls. It is generally held that the arrested
person is entitled to make the calls immediately after being booked or, except where physically
impossible, within a prescribed time, such as three hours, after the arrest.

2)  Answer: Police officers must carefully tailor their interrogations so that they obtain information from the suspects
while protecting their constitutional rights. Cases which have eroded the Miranda Warnings: Oregon v.
Elstad, Illinois v. Perkins, Moran v. Burbine, Berghuis v. Thompkins, Arizona v. Fulminante, Davis v. United
States.

3)  Answer: A consensual encounter occurs when the person is not under arrest, but is merely stopped for
questioning; the individual is free to leave. A detention is the stopping of a person for questioning, with
the concept that the person stopped and is not free to leave. Detention is based upon reasonable
suspicion. An arrest is where a person is taken into custody and based upon probable cause.

4)  Answer: This act provides that a peace officer of one state may enter another state in fresh pursuit to arrest an
offender who has committed a felony in the state from which he or she fled. There is no specific distance
set forth in the act that the officer may travel within the state in order to make the arrest. The act does
provide that after the arrest is made, the officer must take the arrested person before a local magistrate,
without unnecessary delay, for a hearing to determine the lawfulness of the arrest.

5)  Answer: There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed. There is reason to believe the arrested person
has committed the offense.

Love when things are free, so much better than CourseHero

tell your friends and feel free to ask more questions