Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

page: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Kinky ! Golf66.

2nd.




posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I see you're Canadian.

In the U.S. the police can detain you briefly while pursuing a suspect if they have reasonable suspicion.

They had R.S.

Everyone was released. No violation of civil rights.

End of drama.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I get a charge out of the armchair police in this thread.

If you don't want to sound like a fool go to college for C.J., put on a uniform, and do the job.

Many of you don't know what you're talking about.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by SyphonX
 


There is a difference between an arrest and a detention.

Please learn the difference and how the law applies to each before making an incorrect statement.


Yes, of course there is, though I'm not sure what you're referring to with my incorrect statement.

In this case, would you call it arrest or detention (detained)? I would probably consider it detainment due to them being held en masse at the scene.

Or are we and the police now playing the semantics games and saying that "all 19 people were individually arrested at the scene"? With no probable cause, or valid reason for each and every individual arrest. I'm aware that the police can "hold you" for 24 hours with no evidence, but you do need to be charged with a crime, do you not? If you are not being charged with anything, then you are not required to stay "in holding", unless I'm mistaken. So were these people 100% voluntary, and they quote/unquote "consented" to being detained?

It was a roadblock. The people claimed the police swerved into the oncoming lanes right in front of their vehicles and the detainment followed. This sounds like a textbook coercion scenario, no one is going to "resist" during this, as we all know what happens when you "resist arrest" in this country. Zap Zap.
edit on 5-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 


They were cuffed to protect the police.

They are only under arrest if they are told, "You are under arrest." Otherwise, they are detained pursuant to an investigation.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
reply to post by Danbones
 


I see you're Canadian.

In the U.S. the police can detain you briefly while pursuing a suspect if they have reasonable suspicion.

They had R.S.

Everyone was released. No violation of civil rights.

End of drama.



Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light. “We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.


From the link the O.P. provided

It is more than questionable how "reliable" this "tip" was given that the police themselves admit they had no idea what the race, gender of the bank robbers and did not know anything else about them. Reasonable Suspicion? A police officer has no knowledge what a criminal looks like, the color of their skin, or their gender so you call it reasonable to just pull over everyone and handcuff them?

Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion:


Once it has been established that an individual possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place to be searched or a thing to be seized, the Fourth Amendment's protections take hold, and the question then becomes what are the nature of those protections. Police officers need no justification to stop someone on a public street and ask questions, and individuals are completely entitled to refuse to answer any such questions and go about their business. However, a police officer may only search people and places when the officer has probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect criminal activity.

"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside. To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion. Items related to suspected criminal activity found in a search may be taken, or seized, by the officer.


BRENDLIN v. CALIFORNIA


A person is seized and thus entitled to challenge the government’s action when officers, by physical force or a show of authority, terminate or restrain the person’s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429 ; Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U. S. 593 . There is no seizure without that person’s actual submission. See, e.g., California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621 . When police actions do not show an unambiguous intent to restrain or when an individual’s submission takes the form of passive acquiescence, the test for telling when a seizure occurs is whether, in light of all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed he was not free to leave. E.g., United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544 (principal opinion). But when a person “has no desire to leave” for reasons unrelated to the police presence, the “coercive effect of the encounter” can be measured better by asking whether “a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” Bostick, supra, at 435–436. Pp. 4–6.


That Canadian you're lecturing understands the law far better than you do.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You THINK you do.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
reply to post by SyphonX
 


They were cuffed to protect the police.

They are only under arrest if they are told, "You are under arrest." Otherwise, they are detained pursuant to an investigation.


They were all "cuffed" because the police wanted to find a suspect. They made a huge risk and followed through with an absurd operation at the safety of everyone involved. The civilians were cuffed for their convenience, I would argue.

In fact, since they were "so certain" that the suspect was in one of the vehicles at the roadblock, the police actually endangered every single person at that scene. I'm sure the suspect was deemed "armed and extremely dangerous", yet they still decided to stop everyone and crowd them into a dangerous clusterf*k with a possible armed criminal "snapping" because he was backed into a corner.

Really stupid. As they said, it was a "split-decision" so not much critical thinking or "risk assessment" was involved in this.
edit on 5-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
reply to post by SyphonX
 


They were cuffed to protect the police.

They are only under arrest if they are told, "You are under arrest." Otherwise, they are detained pursuant to an investigation.


If you are a graduate of some criminal justice school and represent what criminal justice is teaching their students it is no wonder this country is filled with so many criminal thugs wearing law enforcement badges. Is that what they teach in criminal justice schools? "They are only under arrest if they are told, "You are under arrest"?

There are attorneys across this nation who've paid for their swimming pools, second homes and luxury cars because of foolish police officers who think like you!

Ignrantia Juris Non Excusat! Deny Ignorance!



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You THINK you do.


By you saying this was justified, this practice could be extended to closing down an interstate and "detaining" every motorist, by the hundreds if you want to be dramatic. Because hey... "reasonable suspicion", no description of the suspect whatsoever, other than he is "a motorist", is valid cause to stop an interstate full of US tax-paying citizens and "detaining them for an indeterminate amount of time".

So tell me, if that is considered "too absurd", what laws or limits are in place to prevent such a thing from happening, and why could this not be applied to the discussed scenario?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ElohimJD
 





I say standing on the street while a cop searches my car is far better then allowing this criminal to escape.


This is the TSA's approach to terrorism, everyone's a suspect. And I would argue that the criminal might have escaped because the police were busy conducting an illegal search of everyone near them.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm somewhat ignorant on these matters, so I wouldn't be able to state fact unless I researched straight answers...

But I was under the impression you can be detained or brought in for questioning, otherwise you have to actually be charged with a crime to be "under arrest". Otherwise, you can voluntarily leave unless you are being held for reasons of safety or what have you.

Which makes this case interesting. They were all put in serious danger, by being bottlenecked, stopped and corralled up with a dangerous suspect in the vicinity.

Like someone said earlier, had this been a home invasion or private-property burglary, it's more than likely the police would never have fathomed putting everyone at risk like that. It really does play into the, "Serving the proper masters." kook speak.
edit on 5-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 


Thats because cops are the biggest group of brainless, hopeless, thoughtless careless people who have ever abused a general population. Cops are so stupid and worthless that they can't catch criminals anymore. Cops are so worthless and idiotic that they replaced the power of reason with the power of tasers.
I suggest cops who can't do a damn thing besides set up stings,busts, road blocks and mass arrests to catch "criminals" then maybe they shouldn't be performing that job.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm somewhat ignorant on these matters, so I wouldn't be able to state fact unless I researched straight answers...

But I was under the impression you can be detained or brought in for questioning, otherwise you have to actually be charged with a crime to be "under arrest". Otherwise, you can voluntarily leave unless you are being held for reasons of safety or what have you.

Which makes this case interesting. They were all put in serious danger, by being bottlenecked, stopped and corralled up with a dangerous suspect in the vicinity.

Like someone said earlier, had this been a home invasion or private-property burglary, it's more than likely the police would never have fathomed putting everyone at risk like that. It really does play into the, "Serving the proper masters." kook speak.
edit on 5-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)


I agree that these people were put in danger due to this most imprudent show of gangland justice and total disregard for due process of law.

If a police officer is detaining you, you are not free to leave. A detention is not an arrest but that detention means you are obligated to stay and acquiesce to frisking if the LEO deems it necessary. If that LEO handcuffs you, you are now under arrest whether the LEO say's "You are under arrest" or not.

Detentions, like arrests, are only lawful under conditions of due process of law. An LEO must have some kind of reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause in order to do either. A "tip" that claims bank robbers are at a traffic stop only gives an LEO reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to detain those people who fit the description of the bank robbers. Frank Farnia admitted to the news reporter that they had no idea what the bank robbers looked like, and because of this they lacked probable cause, and as you said, in handling it they way they did, they endangered innocents.

edit on 5-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
reply to post by Danbones
 


I see you're Canadian.


God let’s hope that you are not an American with your statements given below or else - the conditioning is working all too well.


Originally posted by disgustingfatbody
In the U.S. the police can detain you briefly while pursuing a suspect if they have reasonable suspicion.

They had R.S.


Wow, you are scaring me…there is a very big difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is used as the standard for a “Terry” (Ohio v Terry) stop which is limited to those that allow the officer to stop and question someone without probable cause so the officer can explore the foundation of their suspicions. The court has also upheld that an uncorroborated, anonymous tip is insufficient basis for a “Terry” stop.

In this case the police cite "reliable information" was that the perpetrators of a bank robbery were at the intersection in question. Using this as reasonable suspicion to round up everyone at an intersection lacks a few elements required.

Reasonable suspicion exists when an officer is aware of specific, articulateable facts which, when considered with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for particularized suspicion.

Please see United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); United States v. Salinas, 940 F.2d 392, 394 (9th Cir.1991).

Specific - I don't see being an adult in a car at that particular intersection at which a suspect in a bank robbery (with no physical description given) was reportedly in a car (again with no description) as very specific at all. If you do please don’t ever be on a jury for the sake of us all.

Also, now when an officer goes from a reasonable suspicion or “Terry” stop, to actual detention (handcuffing someone) the burden is probable cause not reasonable suspicion.

Probable cause exists when, at the moment the decision is made, the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information that would justify a prudent person's believing that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.

Please see Qian v. Kautz, 168 F.3d 949, 953 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 996 (7th Cir. 2000).

Again – I do not see handcuffing all the adults in every car at a particular intersection until the police happen to find the right person as probable cause. Again, the “tip” is not probable cause or reasonable suspicion.

So by either standard they had no authority to handcuff, search and detain citizens at gunpoint for sitting in their cars at this intersection.


Originally posted by disgustingfatbody

Everyone was released. No violation of civil rights.

End of drama.



Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk.—Arrests are subject to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but the courts have followed the common law in upholding the right of police officers to take a person into custody without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony or a misdemeanor in their presence.183 The probable cause is, of course, the same standard required to be met in the issuance of an arrest warrant, and must be satisfied by conditions existing prior to the policeman's stop, what is discovered thereafter not sufficing to establish retroactively reasonable cause.184 There are, however, instances when a policeman's suspicions will have been aroused by someone's conduct or manner, but probable cause for placing such a person under arrest will be lacking.185 In Terry v. Ohio,186 the Court almost unanimously approved an on-the-street investigation by a police officer which involved "patting down" the subject of the investigation for weapons.

law.justia.com...


The website above gives all the case law - can't stop anyone without at least reasonable suspicion and not handcuffing and detaining somoene for two hours without or probable cause.

Being an adult in a car at a certain intersection is neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





Reasonable suspicion is used as the standard for a “Terry” (Ohio v Terry) stop which is limited to those that allow the officer to stop and question someone without probable cause so the officer can explore the foundation of their suspicions. The court has also upheld that an uncorroborated, anonymous tip is insufficient basis for a “Terry” stop.


You made an excellent post with this one, but I thought it worthwhile to address the "Terry" stop issue a bit. I first became aware of "Terry v. Ohio" because I was living in an upscale neighborhood in the Hollywood Hills. I am a writer and used to do the brunt of my writing in the wee hours of the morning. I would take breaks and walk around the neighborhood around 2 or 3am in the morning. I kept getting detained by police officers who felt it was lawful to frisk me in front of my neighbors they woke up with their flashing lights so they could show my neighbors I was the guy who often got frisked at 2 in the morning.

This happened four times to me. The first time I protested and asked the officer if wasn't violating my rights and he answered: "Your complaint is not with me it is with the Supreme Court". I asked him what he meant by that and he threw out Terry v. Ohio, as did the other police officers who detained me the next two times. Finally I read Terry v. Ohio.

What I discovered was that my complaint was not at all with the Supreme Court and the ruling held in Terry v. Ohio is an outstanding ruling and the police officer who relied upon reasonable suspicion to interrogate those would be bank robbers was a prime example of an outstanding police officer who seemed to have full regards for individual rights.

The facts of Terry v. Ohio are nothing at all like the facts surrounding my detainment in my own neighborhood regardless of the time it was. The police officers who had detained me three separate times in my own neighborhood, frisking me in front of my just awoken neighbors were grossly misapplying Terry v. Ohio in a most imprudent attempt to expand jurisdiction where none existed, which is precisely what I told the two officers who used Terry v. Ohio to excuse their behavior the fourth time I was detained. Of course, just like the poster you were responding to, it was not as if these police officers gave a rats ass what I had to say about Terry v. Ohio and it was only after I respectfully requested they call the Sheriff's and send a Deputy, and only after I respectfully requested several times they do so, that finally they did.

I had refused to grant them jurisdiction and would not allow them to frisk me. They threatened to call the dog sniffing team, and I kept requesting they call the Sheriff's. Finally a Deputy arrived, listened patiently to me, nodded his head quietly and walked over to the two officers. I could not hear most of the conversations but I could see the flailing arms and looks of surprise of the two offending officers as the Deputy explained to them they were unlawfully detaining me. That Deputy then came back and apologized to me and asked me if I wanted to file a complaint. I passed on that offer, but my compassion for ignorant law officers is running thin lately.

Terry v. Ohio is a terrific ruling that is wholly rooted in law, but simply uttering the name of that case law as if it is some sort of shamanistic magic spell does not mean LEO's get to violate the rights of the people.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Terry v. Ohio is a terrific ruling that is wholly rooted in law, but simply uttering the name of that case law as if it is some sort of shamanistic magic spell does not mean LEO's get to violate the rights of the people.


Indeed even a Terry stop must be predicated on some kind of information (reasonable suspicion) like I said above. The police too often think that they can claim Terry to stop anyone at any time. Not true...

I suspect that at the academies they teach them to spout it off if questioned about probable cause.

Walking is not reasonable suspicion regardless of the hour - I guess unless there is an age curfew and you look to be a minor.

Anyway, I was genuine in my previous post about my respect for your knowledge of the law. I think we got into it once about vagrancy laws or something like that. I have learned a good deal reading your posts over time.

I think I might run for Sherriff in 2016 our Sherriff is getting old so I am trying to learn all I can.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





Anyway, I was genuine in my previous post about my respect for your knowledge of the law. I think we got into it once about vagrancy laws or something like that. I have learned a good deal reading your posts over time.

I think I might run for Sherriff in 2016 our Sherriff is getting old so I am trying to learn all I can.


I remember having the argument with you but also cannot remember the circumstance, and since then every time I read one of your posts I keep wondering what the hell was that argument about since we seem to be in agreement on so much.

From what I've read of your posts I suspect you'd make a great Sheriff. Please let me know, if and when you decide to run, how I can help.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
HAHAHA these people saying "i was there" and no one was hurt or treated poorly haven't gone online to see the clear videos of the cops pointing loaded and cocked 12 gauges at a teenagers face. Sounds like they are just agents spreading misinformation.

Before you believe the lies others are saying about how peaceful and innocent the situation was, go do a quick search online, there are plenty of articles and most have videos, that show you how clearly under threat of death every person was in that situation.

Who says no to a wall of cops all pointing their guns at you? Exactly. And when you watch the videos, pay attention to have many guns are pointed at people who aren't doing anything but legally driving their cars down a road that THEY own as tax payers.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeFromTheHerd

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Nope. Legal detention and public safety preceeds individual rights. They were released right? Then there was no offense on the part of legal detention.


Wrong. This would not fall under police privilege for a false imprisonment lawsuit.

And the police wonder why more and more people hate them lol.

The fact that the article states EVERYONE consented to letting the cops search their cars is a very sad and pathetic commentary on the American people today.
edit on 5-6-2012 by FreeFromTheHerd because: (no reason given)


I would have asked to see a warrant. Does anyone else see where this type of thing is headed? Suspected bank robber or no the local authorities nation wide are getting more and more Gestapo like. All you have to do is google police brutality videos and see the kinds of gestapo tactices they pull.





top topics
 
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join