“Massachusetts law applies, there is no requirement for a Magistrate review of arrest.  If arrested, you are arraigned on the next court date and the case starts.  

         My friend, unless my geography is way off and Boston is in fact located in East Germany, the procedure you described would be unconstitutional. Our Constitution requires that a neutral judicial officer review any warrantless arrest shortly after the arrest to determine if there was probable cause for the arrest and, if not, the arrestee must be released.

       Fortunately, before seeking a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to have the entire Massachusetts warrantless arrest procedure declared unconstitutional, I looked at the criminal procedure rules to see if you were correct. It was no surprise to discover that Mass does indeed require a probable cause determination by  a neutral judicial officer within 24 hours of the arrest:



(a) No person shall be held in custody more than twenty-four hours following an arrest, absent exigent circumstances, unless:

 (i) a warrant or other judicial process authorizes the person's detention,

 (ii) a complaint has been authorized under Rule 3(g), or

 (iii) a determination of probable cause for detention has been made pursuant to subsection(b).

 (b) A determination of probable cause for detention shall be made by an appropriate judicial officer. The appropriate officer shall consider any information presented by the police, whether or not known at the time of arrest. The police shall present the information under oath or affirmation, or under the pains and penalties of perjury. The police may present the information orally, in person or by any other means, or in writing. If presented in writing, the information may be transmitted to the appropriate judicial officer by facsimile transmission or by
electronic mail or by such other electronic means as may be found acceptable by the court. The determination of probable cause for detention shall be an ex parte proceeding. The person arrested has no right to appear, either in person or by counsel.

 ….
 (f) If there is no probable cause to believe that the person arrested committed an offense, the judicial officer shall order the person's prompt release from custody.

Mass. R. Crim Pro. 3.1 (a)(b) & (f).

      The probable cause hearing is totally distinct from “the case” –i.e., the trial - itself and, indeed, the defendant is not even entitled to be present and evidence that could not be used at trial such as hearsay can be considered to determine probable cause.

     If a Rule 3(g) complaint is filed, the defendant likewise has the right to a probable cause hearing which is entirely separate from the trial itself.


      I never argue with Camille, so if she says they are arresting guys and gals just for showing up I believe her. But, if this is happening without a warrant, a neutral officer will review in 24 hours and order release unless a probable cause showing is made, unless your entire system is corrupt.

You also lost me with this statement:

"Upon arraignment, you have a record that cannot be expunged and can only be sealed under very limited circumstances (basically, the Virgin Mary has to squat and give birth to a tractor)."

     Dude, you are having a bad day. In fact, if there is a dismissal for no probable cause by the court, the record gets sealed as a matter of law. you do not even have to ask for it:


G.L.c. 276, § 100C. Sealing of records or files in certain criminal
cases; effect upon employment reports; enforcement.

 Section 100C. In any criminal case wherein the defendant has been found
not guilty by the court or jury, or a no bill has been returned by the grand jury, or A FINDING OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE COURT, the commissioner of probation shall seal said court appearance and disposition recorded in his flies [sic] and the clerk and the probation officers of the courts in which the proceedings occurred or were initiated shall likewise seal the records of the proceedings in their flies. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply if the defendant makes a written request to the commissioner not to seal the records of
the proceedings.