I have seen many posts stating that habeus corpus was suspended by in NYC and people can be arrested and held indefinitely for no reason.
While I believe it's always a good thing when people protect their rights and challenge government actions, I wanted to use this platform to help people understand exactly what is happening, at least from a legal perspective.
I cannot speak to the actions of anyone, nor will I attempt to defend or downplay anyone’s actions; and certainly will not do so on social media. I can see the pain in the our country, and so I’d like to play my small role to help in the best way that I can; to provide a legal understanding through this platform.
That said, I welcome any conversations personally on important topics that are transpiring.
Unfortunately, all the headlines are inaccurate because habeus corpus has not been suspended in NYC and you cannot just be arrested for anything.
The suspension of habeus corpus has only been "officially" done three times in history; by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War (only applied to Maryland in response to Confederate conspiracies to sabotage supply lines to Washington, DC), by Ulysses Grant during Reconstruction (to suppress the Ku Klux Klan and other southern groups opposing Reconstruction), and, appallingly, by Franklin Delanor Roosevelt during WWII (only applied to about 100,000 Japanese on the West Coast, many of whom were US Citizens, and to 8 German saboteurs who were captured).
George W. Bush was challenged for trying to get around habeus corpus by setting up military tribunals at Guatanamo Bay after the 9/11 attacks.
These are still extremely controversial points in history and many still debate the danger of having the President use these powers.
Habeus corpus originated in England during Medievel Times and was protected by our founding fathers in the US Constitution. It literally means "I have the body" and it's the legal right someone who has been arrested has to appear before a judge who will determine if their imprisonment is legal.
If you want to read more about the concept of habeus corpus I’d suggest reading this; https://people.howstuffworks.com/habeas-corpus-important.htm
This concept is just one piece of "due process" which is a set of legal principles that leads to procedures and rules within the justice system to ensure that people who are arrested are given legal rights including the right to have the government prove the charges, to confront their accusers, etc.
Each State has their own procedures in place to protect habeus corpus.
In New York, although it is not a law, it is legal precedent that a prisoner should be brought before a judge within 24 hours of arrest (most states give the courts 72 hours to bring a prisoner in).
That means the courts must bring a prisoner before a judge within 24 hours and the police need to be prepared to list charges at that point.
At this first appearance , not only are the charges listed, but bail is also set and a prisoner either is released on personal recognizance or has the chance to post bail and be released.
What has happened in NYC is a judge has issued a ruling stating that prisoners do not have to be brought to the court for arraignment within 24 hours, rather they can be held beyond that time.
Basically, the Judge said that the system is overburdened by additional arrests from the protests and covid restrictions so it is not possible for the prisoners to be brought in within 24 hours and the police don't have enough time to process prisoners and bring formal charges against them in 24 hours.
I am surmising this is a “man power” issue, as there are only so many prosecutors, judges, and times in the day to perform arraignments.
The judge did not set a specific timeframe for when prisoners have to be arraigned; meaning he did not extend it to 48 hours or 72 hours. It is left open-ended, and the fear is that someone could sit in prison, without arraignment, indefinitely.
My opinion is that someone held beyond 72 hours without arraignment, would have a pretty good legal argument that their rights were violated.
That said, clearly problematical for an individual arrested, especially if it is someone who was peaceful protesting and the arrest was a stretch.
At the same time, it is important to note that this is a ruling from a court, meaning this is not a new law and can be superseded by a specific law or a higher court.
More to come on this important subject.......