Mass detention of citizens, illegal searches. Aurora, CO. June 2012

[Dino]

I already did that, I'm still curious as to why you think informing them of the reason for the stop is so relevant. Does it change the lawfulness of the stop?

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/residents-given-right-to-resist-police-under-new-indiana-law.html

Middleview,

It was Indiana, not Colorado. My mistake, but I knew I heard somethiing about it.

 

[Marshabar]

I'm appalled and surprised and also blown away. I'm also trying to imagine how my husband and I would react to something like this. We might still be in jail.

 

[Dino]

Resisting the police while in hot pursuit of an armed felon?

You would be lucky if you were only in jail.

 

[Marshabar]

What I'd be dead?

Why stop with 19 cars? Why not lock down and handcuff a whole neighborhood or town when a crime has been committed. Or a whole country for that matter as long as they have a "reliable" tip with NO description? That doesn't even make any sense.

 

[WhistleBlower]

dino,

you gave a scenario in which you felt the police were justified and were told that was not what happened.

those people were all put under arrest without a word about what was going on.

please justify that action to the fourth amendment.

you are not justifying anything by answering questions with questions.

 

[Dino]

Maybe if you read the story you'd know why it was those 19 cars.

 

[Dino]

How does it matter if they were told what was going on?

Why do you feel that makes it some how lawfully more reasonable?

Those people were NOT placed under arrest. They were detained while the search proceeded for a criminal in a moment of hot pursuit.

 

[jammer]

What's going on here? I thought all you rightwingers were the "let's get tough on crime" crowd and here you are wanting to let an armed bank robber escape. Now that's the best laugh I've had all day. I betcha not one of you would have complained if the folks pulled out of their cars had all been black or hispanic.

 

[oicu812]

What's going on here? I thought all you rightwingers were the "let's get tough on crime" crowd and here you are wanting to let an armed bank robber escape. Now that's the best laugh I've had all day. I betcha not one of you would have complained if the folks pulled out of their cars had all been black or hispanic.

you've been smileing at the sun again, huh,?

 

[oicu812]

you can be "detained" for up to 72 hrs. w/o being charged....

 

[WhistleBlower]

call it what you like, there is an attorney talking as though those people have an unlawful detention tort. if you'd like to explain why the fourth amendment doesn't apply, go for it.

 

[Dino]

It surprises me not in the least that you don't understand the values of a conservative. It's not a question of being "tough on crime", it's about the limitation of powers the government has to detain and investigate.

Far be it from you to catch the nuance here.

 

[WhistleBlower]

It surprises me not in the least that you don't understand the values of a conservative. It's not a question of being "tough on crime", it's about the limitation of powers the government has to detain and investigate.

Far be it from you to catch the nuance here.

i don't know how much of this arrogant nonsense is directed at me, but i would like to see you give your reasoning that those people's fourth amendment rights were not violated.

 

[oicu812]

ya know, now im getting confused....everybody,,,step back and place the mouse on the floor...DO IT NOW! :.}

 

[Dino]

Ok, for the SECOND time...

If there's reasonable belief the thief is limited to an area containing only these 19 cars, they can be stopped and detained (not under arrest) until officers determine whether the robber is among them- and then no longer. If that's what happened, there is no constitutional violation.

 

[WhistleBlower]

so is this legal opinion you've given one of a professional or lay person?

not being an attorney, there isn't much i can say beyond feeling that there was quite a bit wrong about the whole maneuver, particularly penning in a suspect known to be armed in close quarters with a bunch of civilians and heavily armed cops. that nobody was hurt and the robber was actually caught is commendable, but was it done in violation of 40 people's civil rights?

in the abc news video, there is an attorney giving an opinion that there may have been unlawful detention, but it cuts off before he gives his reasoning. i haven't been able to find anybody giving a professional opinion.

if you are indeed an attorney, i suppose you can cite some specifics that will support your opinion and be able to say why this particular instance fits those criteria?

 

[middleview]

Go read the ABC story....

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”

They were not arrested....and being in the very small area in proximity to the bank where the crime was committed was enough probable cause for the short detention....

 

[WhistleBlower]

while that does ameliorate my reservations about the legality of the operation, i am still not satisfied that risk was worth the benefit.

a conservative site poll is running 2:1 against the police

Go read the ABC story....

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”

They were not arrested....and being in the very small area in proximity to the bank where the crime was committed was enough probable cause for the short detention....

 

[trapdoor]

If I'm handcuffed, I'm under arrest, as far as I'm concerned. I'd have been detained at least the full 72 hours because I wouldn't have let them search my car.