[RussP]

My question is, "What the hell was running through the bad guy's mind during those two hours as they were getting closer and closer and closer...?"

[glockaviator]

Police always want to be able to detain without arrest. That way they don't have to have probable cause.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by glockaviator

Police always want to be able to detain without arrest. That way they don't have to have probable cause.

Which may have something to do with the fact that we conduct investigations way more frequently than we bring charges...

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by glockaviator

All available LEGAL resources. I come down on the side that you can't handcuff everyone in the vicinity, point a gun at them or otherwise threaten them and get their "permission" and search them. THAT is illegal.

Please provide case law supporting your assertion that some how handcuffing a person makes them "under arrest" and not merely "detained." You imply that the police need to have probable cause to place a person in handcuffs.

I submit the following:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Landmark case specifically establishing "reasonable, articulable suspicion" as the standard for investigatory stops.

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
In this case, the USSC specifically declined to set an outside maximum period of detention during a "Terry" stop, stating: "Although we decline to adopt any outside time limitation for a permissible Terry stop, we have never approved a seizure of the person for the prolonged 90-minute period involved here and cannot do so on the facts presented by this case,” and, “In assessing the effect of the length of the detention, we take into account whether the police diligently pursue their investigation"

Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)
Continued detention to bring a drug-sniffing dog to the scene of a traffic stop is reasonable as long as it does not unreasonably prolong the stop.



United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985)
In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant. Here, the DEA agent diligently pursued his investigation, and clearly no delay unnecessary to the investigation was involved.

Gallegos v. City of Colorado Springs
"A Terry stop does not automatically elevate into an arrest where police officers use handcuffs on a suspect or place him on the ground. Police officers are authorized to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of a Terry stop."

People of California v. Osborne
United States v. Stewart
All cases where handcuffing during an investigative detention was reasonable.

In re Carlos M. 220 CA3 372,385 (1990)
“The fact that a defendant is handcuffed while being detained does not, by itself, transform a detention into an arrest.”

United States v. Acosta-Colon
"Officers engaged in an otherwise lawful stop must be permitted to take measures—including the use of handcuffs—they believe reasonably necessary to protect themselves from harm, or to safeguard the security of others."

Haynie v. County of Los Angeles
"A brief, although complete, restriction of liberty, such as handcuffing, during a Terry stop is not a de facto arrest, if not excessive under the circumstances.”

US v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002)
The allowable scope of an investigative detention cannot be determined by reference to a bright-line rule; "common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria."

United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221 (1985)
When police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion
...
Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of [a Terry] stop.

United States v. Maguire
The use of handcuffs to address legitimate officer safety concerns during a Terry stop or investigative detention does not transform that detention into an arrest

Bruzy and Riordan v. Trooper Joyner, et. al.
Troopers received a report of a possible gunshot fired from a vehicle. The vehicle was the subject of a high risk stop and the occupant (Bruzy) was handcuffed. Her fiance, Riordan, was traveling in a separate vehicle and stopped ahead of the scene. He was also detained and handcuffed, despite not being party to the original complaint. They filed a lawsuit and the court ruled that the detention and handcuffing were lawful measures taken in response to reasonable, articulable suspicion, and no "full blown arrest" occurred.
http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions...JS.Riordan.pdf

Sorry, I got tired of looking up and writing proper citations after a while. I eagerly await the case law and/or statutes that you have to present in support of your position.

[glockaviator]

Those people were all involved in the crime or related somehow to the person who was involved. What is different about what Aurora police did, was they handcuffed and detained and searched 20 or more people whose only involvement in the crime was WAITING AT THE RED LIGHT! They were "arrested" for just being there.

THAT is a big difference.

Police can't just cuff everyone down and then go through and eliminate people as suspects. Not in masse and not when they are not remotely involved in the crime.

[kenpoprofessor]

For all you guys that think it was OK to use these tactics, you should be ashamed of yourself. It's supposed to be difficult to arrest, try, and adjudicate a person, it's the checks and balances of the legal system. It shouldn't be easy for an officer to just arrest and process a person and say "let the judge or jury settle it, I'm going home tonight".

For those who think it was a use of a good tactic, this is what Obama thought of his agenda, and you people are making the same objection.

Good Grief. Obama Blames Founding Fathers For His Failures - YouTube

Good Grief. Obama Blames Founding Fathers For His Failures - YouTube

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[lpo]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

For all you guys that think it was OK to use these tactics, you should be ashamed of yourself. It's supposed to be difficult to arrest, try, and adjudicate a person, it's the checks and balances of the legal system. It shouldn't be easy for an officer to just arrest and process a person and say "let the judge or jury settle it, I'm going home tonight".

For those who think it was a use of a good tactic, this is what Obama thought of his agenda, and you people are making the same objection.

Good Grief. Obama Blames Founding Fathers For His Failures - YouTube

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Well, they only arrested the bank robber suspect, not anyone else. Considering it took "up to 2 hours" and all those other people they had to get through first, id day it was pretty damn difficult to get them arrested.

Have a gay ****** carryin' *****slap fighting day

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

For all you guys that think it was OK to use these tactics, you should be ashamed of yourself. It's supposed to be difficult to arrest, try, and adjudicate a person, it's the checks and balances of the legal system. It shouldn't be easy for an officer to just arrest and process a person and say "let the judge or jury settle it, I'm going home tonight".

For those who think it was a use of a good tactic, this is what Obama thought of his agenda, and you people are making the same objection.

Good Grief. Obama Blames Founding Fathers For His Failures - YouTube

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Where in the world did you get the idea that it's "supposed" to be difficult to detain or arrest someone? I think you need to familiarize yourself with the level of proof required for reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

The court system is the most definitely the proper arena for defining the constitutional legality of any given tactic or action. Do I think this case is borderline? Heck yeah. However, not every situation falls neatly into the extreme right or sovereign citizen's view of the Constitution.

[RetailNinja]

KenpoWat

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by glockaviator

Those people were all involved in the crime or related somehow to the person who was involved. What is different about what Aurora police did, was they handcuffed and detained and searched 20 or more people whose only involvement in the crime was WAITING AT THE RED LIGHT! They were "arrested" for just being there.

THAT is a big difference.

Police can't just cuff everyone down and then go through and eliminate people as suspects. Not in masse and not when they are not remotely involved in the crime.

In this case, they had specific, articulable facts that led them to believe that the bank robber was at the intersection. The fact that most of them proved to be uninvolved is completely immaterial.

What more could you want?

[Texas357]

Originally Posted by DaBigBR

In this case, they had specific, articulable facts that led them to believe that the bank robber was at the intersection. The fact that most of them proved to be uninvolved is completely immaterial.

What more could you want?

So they had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain 1 person? They had no more reason to believe it was any of the drivers more than the next. If you "reasonably believe" that an unidentified criminal is among a group of people, how large can the group be that it is still ok to handcuff and detain them all?

[Texas357]

Completely immaterial? They handcuffed and detained 20 people to catch 1?

What percent of those people were innocent?

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by Texas357

So they had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain 1 person? They had no more reason to believe it was any of the drivers more than the next. If you "reasonably believe" that an unidentified criminal is among a group of people, how large can the group be that it is still ok to handcuff and detain them all?

You're going down the same mistaken route as the ex-judge. I've already provided references where people can be detained without particular suspicion. Like it or not, the greater public safety sometimes trumps individual wishes.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

You're going down the same mistaken route as the ex-judge. I've already provided references where people can be detained without particular suspicion. Like it or not, the greater public safety sometimes trumps individual wishes.

Cue the "ends don't justify means!!!" crowd.

Speaking of which, of course they do...at least on occasion. Many, many examples abound.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Texas357

So they had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain 1 person? They had no more reason to believe it was any of the drivers more than the next. If you "reasonably believe" that an unidentified criminal is among a group of people, how large can the group be that it is still ok to handcuff and detain them all?

The part in bold, how do you know that?

[RussP]

And, now, the reliable informant has been identified...

A GPS tracking device hidden with stacks of cash allowed police to track a suspected bank robber before a controversial traffic stop Saturday, according to testimony this morning.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by RussP

And, now, the reliable informant has been identified...

A GPS tracking device hidden with stacks of cash allowed police to track a suspected bank robber before a controversial traffic stop Saturday, according to testimony this morning.

Well, lookie there. Heading over to PI now...

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Well, lookie there. Heading over to PI now...

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by RussP

0246 > 0245.

[actionshooter10]

Originally Posted by kenpoprofessor

For all you guys that think it was OK to use these tactics, you should be ashamed of yourself. It's supposed to be difficult to arrest, try, and adjudicate a person, it's the checks and balances of the legal system. It shouldn't be easy for an officer to just arrest and process a person and say "let the judge or jury settle it, I'm going home tonight".

For those who think it was a use of a good tactic, this is what Obama thought of his agenda, and you people are making the same objection.

Good Grief. Obama Blames Founding Fathers For His Failures - YouTube

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

You don't like it, understood.

Like it or not, the officers involved acted within the law.

If you feel that passionate about it, call your congressman and ask them to sponsor a bill outlawing said behavior.

[Tiro Fijo]

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with
power to endanger the public liberty."

John Adams

[ICARRY2]

What would happen if a handcuffed motorist refused consent to search?

Would they have to let the motorist go? How would police continue to detain the motorist without a desription of the bank robber?

[DaBigBR]

Originally Posted by Texas357

So they had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain 1 person? They had no more reason to believe it was any of the drivers more than the next. If you "reasonably believe" that an unidentified criminal is among a group of people, how large can the group be that it is still ok to handcuff and detain them all?

That's entirely a fact based question. In this case, they limited the scope of their detention to the individuals at an intersection. In another case, it could be a classroom, in another, it could be an elevator.

Originally Posted by Texas357

Completely immaterial? They handcuffed and detained 20 people to catch 1?

What percent of those people were innocent?

It appears that the majority of them were. The fact that they proved to be innoncent does not nullify the fact that that their detention was reasonable.

Originally Posted by ICARRY2

What would happen if a handcuffed motorist refused consent to search?

Would they have to let the motorist go? How would police continue to detain the motorist without a desription of the bank robber?

It didn't come to that, so I guess we'll never know. It's possible that a warrantless SEARCH could be justified given 1) exigent circumstances related to the fact they were seeking a potentially ARMED robber and 2) probable cause/Carrol.

[Mayhem like Me]

The warrantless search exemption for vehicles may have come into play depending on the totality of circumstances present with the person refusing.

[RussP]

“We had a virtual certainty that the bank robber was in one of those cars,” Oates said.

Police spokesman Frank Fania tells local ABC affiliate