Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

Aurora PD gets the job done...

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by PinkoCommie, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. Mayhem like Me

    Mayhem like Me Semper Paratus

    Mar 13, 2001
    Not a chance
    excuse me I threw up a little your answer sound a lot like blah blah blah blah blah blah I have no idea

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  2. actionshooter10

    actionshooter10 CLM

    Dec 29, 2006
    You also need to familiarize yourself with the definition of the word, detained.

    These people were detained pending investigation, NOT arrested.

    Tell ya what, I'll do the work for you:

    de·tain [dih-teyn]

    verb (used with object)
    1. to keep from proceeding; keep waiting; delay.

    ar·rest [uh-rest] Show IPA

    verb (used with object)
    1. to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody

  3. The plaintiff's lawyers will argue that the citizens were indeed placed under arrest as there appears to be:
    1. Restraint by handcuffs
    2. Police show of force (guns drawn)
    3. Time of restraint was over an hour, perhaps as long as 2 hours
    4. A reasonable person would believe that the citizens were indeed under arrest.
    5. They will work in the fact that the plaintiff's were coerced to allow search of their persons and vehicles. It may be relevant. Might need a ruling on that one.

    And, of course, the reason it matters, is because in order to arrest someone, the police must show probably cause. Otherwise it is an illegal arrest.
  4. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    May 4, 2003
    Yet as of yesterday, Aurora PD had only 5 complaints about the situation. None (zero, nada, zilch, goose egg, null set) came from people who were actually there.
  5. Mayhem like Me

    Mayhem like Me Semper Paratus

    Mar 13, 2001
    Not a chance
  6. c01

    c01 Crazy Eye

    Feb 18, 2010
  7. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    May 4, 2003
    To hit your points:
    1. Handcuffs are a safety tool, and appropriate in securing unknowns in the search for an armed robber who may have a a hostage.
    2. The show of force was applied to unknown and unsecured people who might have access to firearms. None of the detainees faced a gun while moved off to the side.
    3. Time of restraint works out to about 5 minute per car that needed to be secured and cleared. Excessive?
    4. The people were undoubtedly told at least a bit of what was going on, and a reasonable person would have known that the search for a bank robber wasn't going to lead to him.
    5. Whether coerced or not, no contraband was found in any of the innocent parties' cars. No charges, nothing to supress, nothing to be made whole.

    And as has been asked---tell us *your* plan to solve the problem. Violent man with guns has robbed a bank, threatening death to both employees and general public. He might have a hostage. You have a tip, whatchya gonna do?
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  8. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    May 4, 2003
    Keep reading on the thread. The (ex-)judge is full of it.
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  9. actionshooter10

    actionshooter10 CLM

    Dec 29, 2006
    The Supreme Court has ruled there are 3 types of police encounters
    1. Consensual Stop
    2. Detention
    3. Arrest

    Lets use our imagination briefly.

    I get an assault call involving a weapon.
    I arrive on scene and observe you coming out of the house where the assault was committed. I have no actor information.
    I draw my gun and order you to the ground where I place you in restraints.

    Are you under arrest?

    No. I have no probable cause to arrest you.

    You're detained. You're not free to leave and you will remain detained until 1. My safety is not in jeopardy, and 2. I determine that you did not commit a crime.

    The Supreme Court has never set a time frame for a stop. They've gone out of their way not to.

    The circumstances involved and public interest will determine what is a "reasonable" time period to keep someone detained.

    I would love to see this go the Supreme Court. I believe it would be upheld.

    The police department did an excellent job communicating to the people they had detained why they were detained and what was going on.
  10. larry_minn

    larry_minn Silver Member Millennium Member

    Dec 16, 1999
    Guess it would have been a bad day for me if I had been on that road. Legally armed in pickup with MN plates. Since I had a gun I MUST be robber. Heck they likely would find duct tape, extra clothes (must be my disguise) and in winter stocking mask/scarfs/gloves.
    Then they would arrest me for RAPE as well. (I have the tool)
    BTW a road block where they look at people/glance in trunk let folk go. Vs pull people at gunpoint/cuff/restrain them..
  11. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    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...?"
  12. Police always want to be able to detain without arrest. That way they don't have to have probable cause.
  13. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    May 4, 2003
    Which may have something to do with the fact that we conduct investigations way more frequently than we bring charges...
  14. DaBigBR

    DaBigBR No Infidels!

    Oct 28, 2005
    Circling the wagons.
    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.

    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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.

    [ame=""]Good Grief. Obama Blames Founding Fathers For His Failures - YouTube[/ame]

    Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

  17. lpo

    lpo what?!?!?!?!?

    Dec 5, 2003
    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
  18. rockapede


    Sep 3, 2009
    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.
  19. DaBigBR

    DaBigBR No Infidels!

    Oct 28, 2005
    Circling the wagons.
    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?