◆ SpookStack

With regard to the legality of a prisoner waiving his right to an immediate arraignment before a committing magistrate, the case of Bishop v. Lucy, et al, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas (1899), 50 Southwestern Reporter 1029, holds that a prisoner may waive his statutory right to be promptly taken before & magistrate after his arrest by consent to confinement pending an investigation by police authorities. In this case, a city marshal, after having been called to the scene of a burglary, arrested a suspect within two blocks who answered the general description of the burglar. This was at 4:00 A.M. He was placed in the local jail. Before 9;00 A.M. the same morning, February 12, 1898, the oity warshal gave the defendant the option of being immediately carried before a mazistrate or of remaining in the city prison until an investigation could be made by the city marsha) and police officers to deternine whether they would file a charge of burglary against the defendant. The defendant expressed bis preference to rezain and not to be arraigned, fhe case of Cannon v. American Indennity Company, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1934, Southwestern Reporter, Second Series 815, which was a suit for false izprisoment, held that a prisoner could waive his right to an early trial and cited the Bishop Ve Lucy case supre and several other Texas decisions. f By menorendun dated March 5, 1943, Mr. Alexander Roltsoff interpreted thetdecistons of the United States\Supreme_Court in the cases of Benjamin A, Metabd and others v. United States » and Me Co Anderson and others v. United States. saat ae Mra Holtsoff atated the court in each case called attention to the statutes which require a prisoner after his arrest to be brought before a committing magistrate. (Section 300A, Title 5, United States Code). Mr. Roltsoff stated that as a practical matter the FBI is not called upon to change ite practices on the basis of these decisions. Fis understanding, which is correct, is that the FBI always brinze its prisoners before a Commissioner within a reasonable time unless the prisoner in writing waives such appearance. Mr. Holtsoff stated he believes the prisoner can legally waive his right to be brought before a Commissioner immediately and a confession taken in the interim to be adnissible. He states every Constitutional and legal right may be waived. by the p-rson to whom such @ right is accorded and mentions that a defendant in @ criminal case may waive the right of counsel, the right to a trial by jury and other rights. He says it would necessarily follow that by the seme token a defendant under arrest may waive his legal right to be. taken promptly before a committing mazistrate. Consequently, the practice of the FBI of accepting written waivers fron defendants, in cases where such course appeara desirable, of his right to be taken promptly ‘before a Commissioner ia entirely legal, ethical and proper and ia not inconsistent with anything stated by the Supreme Court in the Motlabb and Anderson cases. In Mr. Holtsoff'ts opinion there £g no reason why the use of such waivers should not be continued {f the defendant is desirous of signing one. Ur. Holtzoff suggested that the waiver provide in addition to other things that the risoner be expressly inforned of his right to be taken before a United States Comxissioner and that he expressly ani with knowledze of such right, walves it. -5-