{"id":224244,"date":"2026-09-14T10:41:34","date_gmt":"2026-09-14T17:41:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/arrest-for-felony-committed-days-earlier\/"},"modified":"2026-09-17T06:18:47","modified_gmt":"2026-09-17T13:18:47","slug":"arrest-for-felony-committed-days-earlier","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/portal.bluetogold.com\/?p=224244","title":{"rendered":"Can Police Arrest for a Felony Committed Days Earlier?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Anthony Bandiero<\/a><\/strong>
\nAttorney and Senior Legal Instructor, Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training<\/p>\n

A question from an officer in California. A felon with a gun fled a traffic stop. Days later the same officers spotted the car, stopped it, and recognized the driver. Their sergeant told them they could not arrest him for the earlier incident and could not Mirandize him about it. The officer wants to know who is right.<\/em><\/p>\n

Can police arrest somebody for a felony that was actually committed days earlier? All right, that’s a good question. Hey real quick, my name is Anthony Bandiero, I’m an attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training, bringing you another roadside chat.<\/p>\n

All right, so let’s look at this case. It looks like I’m going to have to get involved between two people who may disagree about the law, so let me answer the question.<\/p>\n

All right, so the officer comes from California, but my answer generally does not change here. I think it’s pretty consistent around the country.<\/p>\n

What happened on the first stop?<\/h2>\n

So the officer says, my partner and I observed a vehicle stopped at a traffic light, failed to drive after several cycles of light. So something’s up with the person, right. Made a traffic stop, saw that the driver was hunched over, passed out, also observed a firearm tucked between the driver’s seat and the center console. The officer opened the door, retrieved the firearm without waking the guy up. So far so good.<\/p>\n

The driver came to and fled the location in his vehicle. The pursuit ensued but it was terminated. All right. Both him and his partner saw the male’s face, saw the driver, he can positively identify the person. A license plate was obtained and a records check conducted. So we booked up the firearm and so forth. Oh, and the driver’s also a felon, so we have multiple crimes going on here.<\/p>\n

A few days later we observed the same vehicle. We immediately recognized it by its license plate and sticker on the back window. We made a traffic stop for a mechanical violation. The driver immediately exited and I immediately recognized the driver as the one who fled. The driver was detained, handcuffed and frisked, because they had the firearm before.<\/p>\n

So far so good. I do believe that you can justify armed and dangerous. He fled, he’s a felon with a gun, right, previously. That’s good. Wasn’t that long ago.<\/p>\n

My sergeant arrived on scene and said hey, we can’t arrest him for what happened a few nights ago. Also the sergeant says we cannot Mirandize him and talk to him about the previous incident. So the driver was arrested for DUI and booked into jail. Are we correct here?<\/p>\n

What does the California arrest statute actually say?<\/h2>\n

No. Look, I’m not here to criticize, right. I’m here to teach the law. But based on these facts, and Sarge, if you’re watching this and you’ve got something else, please just call me, right. If you want to go into the comments of YouTube and say hey, I want to talk to you about this, I’ll give you my phone number, or you can email me at Anthony at bluetogold.com.<\/p>\n

But where is the law here, right? First of all, let’s talk about the arrest. What is the law in California regarding arrests? Well, it’s Penal Code 836, right. And it says a peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or without a warrant may arrest the person whenever any of the following circumstances occur. The officer has probable cause<\/a> to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence. The person arrested has committed a felony although not in the officer’s presence. The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony whether or not a felony in fact has been committed.<\/p>\n

Okay, so what we have here is the person to be arrested has committed a felony in the officer’s presence, right, carrying the gun. Well, I don’t know if it’s a felony for the concealed part, but we learned later that it was a felony right, because he’s a prohibited person. So the person to be arrested committed a felony although not in the officer’s presence. Even if we go with the logic that we learned later that he committed a felony, and I still think that I may be wrong here, that he may have committed a felony just with the, if he was not even a felon, he committed a felony. I’m not positive on that.<\/p>\n

So we have that. There is no requirement that if he gets away we can’t arrest him a few days later. Okay. The statute of limitations does not run on this.<\/p>\n

This is also backed up by U.S. Supreme Court case law: if probable cause exists, no warrant is required to apprehend a suspected felon in a public place. Period. Full stop. That’s the rule.<\/p>\n

Is the sergeant thinking of the stale misdemeanor rule?<\/h2>\n

Now I think, and I may be wrong, but I think my sergeant here is mixing up the doctrine of the stale misdemeanor rule<\/a>. California has this rule that only applies to misdemeanors, and it basically says this. If you have probable cause for a misdemeanor committed in your presence and you unreasonably delay that arrest, you cannot then arrest him later. You have to just cite and release.<\/p>\n

But that’s not what’s going on here. We’re not arresting a person just for misdemeanors. We’re arresting him for felonies. So there is no stale felony rule in California. It’s only misdemeanors. And that’s the only thing I can think that the sergeant is thinking of. So if that’s the case, hopefully I fixed that.<\/p>\n

Can you Mirandize him about the earlier incident?<\/h2>\n

The next thing we’ve got to talk about is this Miranda issue. I’m just not sure where this is coming from, right. I understand that the law can be very complicated, but where anywhere is this rule that we cannot Mirandize somebody and talk to them about criminal activity?<\/p>\n

Now if they want a lawyer, okay, that’s right. If maybe that’s part of the facts, I don’t know, if they wanted a lawyer or they wanted to remain silent, then not only can you not ask incriminating questions about the DUI if they’re in custody, but also you can’t ask them about previous criminal activity, right, the stuff that happened a few days ago. If they want a lawyer or the right to remain silent.<\/p>\n

But unless they did that, there is no prohibition whatsoever to Mirandize this guy on scene and try to talk to him about what happened a few days ago.<\/p>\n

So I hope this helps, right. Look, this is why I’m here, to try to educate officers around the country. And do not think for one second that I had all the answers when I was an officer, right, a trooper. I made a lot of mistakes, and I think that this is just an honest mistake here. So hopefully this fixes it. Hopefully next time we can have a little more power and do our job out there, right. Your job is already hard enough.<\/p>\n

The short version<\/h2>\n