It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why don't you just be honest and admit that you didn't bother to look for that bit. Had you bothered you would have found that "bit" ...
...
You might want to consider becoming an Aurora police officer, from what I hear they're not real big on facts either.
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.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both - Benjamin Franklin
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.
Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Sadly, we don't know under what pretenses such consent was obtained. As another poster stated earlier -- was their some strong arm tactics employed to get compliance with the action. We won't know unless someone speaks up or this does somehow get to court.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
What established critera; the police already said the tip was vague. So any yahoo can call into a tip line, say that they believe someone who committed a crime (or maybe just for fun) is at such and such intersection and the police have enough "cause" to detain citizens that did nothing wrong?
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I can see if they were at the scene of a crime...that is investigative. This was people in no way connected with the crime and were all held. While the argument can be made both ways, it has a lot of merit for the citizens that were going about their business and were detained for no reason other than "virtual certainty" as the officer stated...
Originally posted by TheAnarchist
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.
Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.
If you can read that and not be deeply offended by it on some level
Originally posted by Nucleardiver
How in the hell could they have been looking for someone if they had no idea who they were looking for?
Originally posted by Nucleardiver
Personally I think that the bank robbery was simply used as an excuse to through around their power and initiate a probable cause scenario. This whole scenario reeks of BS and totalitarian Gestapo tactics.
Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
I love my state all the more at moments like this. Car is an extension of my home. I have to invite them in.
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.
The court noted that use of handcuffs during a “Terry Stop” is not the ordinary course of events, but it does not necessarily change the event to an arrest “when it [use of handcuffs] is a reasonable response to legitimate safety concerns on the part of the investigating officers… Further, the fact that the officers approached a stopped car with guns drawn in order to protect themselves and bystanders on the street [does not] necessarily transmute a ‘Terry stop’ into an arrest.”
In applying the law to the facts here, the court noted that the troopers had information from an identified good-citizen informant who remained on the scene during the police investigation. The troopers had no reason to believe that Mr. Angelico’s information regarding Bruzy and her vehicle was unreliable. In looking at the treatment of Riordan, the court noted that officers were aware that Riiordan’s fiancé was under investigation for firing a shot. “Although Riordan had not been disruptive to the investigation, there was the potential that he could do so. Objectively speaking, the justification for placing Riordan in handcuffs was twofold: (1) to prevent him from disrupting the investigation of Bruzy, and (2) to determine if Riordan had any role in the suspected criminal activity.” The court found that the actions of the Troopers and officers were reasonable with respect to Bruzy and Riordan and notwithstanding the handcuffing, remained a “Terry stop” and not a full-blown arrest. As such the officers were released from liability.
The Fourth Amendment: Stop and Frisk
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband)
Case: Cooke v. State, 29 FLW D2693 (4th DCA)
Date: December 10, 2004
FACTS: Police stopped a vehicle pursuant to a report of it being involved in a “suspicious incident.” The driver fled but the occupant, Cocke, was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. About ten to fifteen minutes later, a canine unit arrived and started a search for the driver. Another fifteen minutes passed when the person who reported the suspicious incident arrived. He was unable to positively identify Cocke as being involved. An officer then read Cocke his Miranda rights. Cocke immediately confessed that he had been smoking marijuana. The officer then searched the vehicle and found not only marijuana but evidence that led to Cocke being arrested for burglary. At the suppression hearing, the defense claimed that there was no probable cause to detain Cocke and therefore his statement about smoking marijuana was obtained as a result of an unlawful detention. Furthermore the drugs and evidence should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree (that is, they were discovered only as a result of the statement given by Cocke).
RULING: The State conceded that there was no probable cause to detain Cocke. However, they argued that the detention was lawful because it was based on reasonable suspicion (a Terry stop). The appellate court pointed out that under certain circumstances a person temporarily detained on reasonable suspicion may be handcuffed if there reason for the officer to believe he or she is armed and dangerous. But the handcuffs must be removed once the officer pats the person down and finds no weapons. In this case, the defendant was handcuffed for a significant period of time for no apparent reason. Thus, the detention went beyond what Terry allows and by reason of the extended handcuffing, had morphed into an arrest. Since there was no probable cause to support an arrest, the marijuana-related statement and eventual discovery of the drugs and evidence violated Cocke’s constitutional rights and should be suppressed.
The search was by consent...
The roablock stopped every car meeting established criteria...
The armed bank robber was among those 19 cars that were stopped....
Once the police cleared each car the people were released and allowed to continue....
Both sides have valid arguments, making the action subject to court interpretation within existing laws and case laws. The argument by the police is going to be investigative detentions based on credible information, and since the criminal was located it should be interesting to see how this plays out.
For this the term people need to be familiar with is "good faith exception".
Originally posted by Masterjaden
I suppose you think that the TSA is legitimate and legal too???
Originally posted by TKDRL
Wow, it weighs heavy on my heart, that even a single american can not only not be outraged at this, but even go so far as to defend it.........