Police Corral 40 People in Search for Bank Robber

[Jagshund]

Aside from the issue of individual rights, how was this police chief so certain they knew the area of town the bank robber was in even though they didn't know what he looked like or what type of vehicle he was driving? My answer? THEY'RE TRACKING OUR MONEY! Burn your cash or send it to me for safe keeping.


Aurora Police Chief Describes Wild Search For Bank Robber - Yahoo! News

[Moses]

Ridiculous violation of the Constitution. There may be lawsuits. Chief needs to be fired. Maybe arrested. Give him a lesson in due process.

[Zeke]

From my understanding, if the chief absolutely knew the perp was in one of the 19 cars, he had probable cause. I know this tests the issue and won't go down well. But, IMHO, he can do that.

I have my old law textbook in front of me, but I'm no attorney, did not receive a degree in law and did not sleep at the Holiday Inn.

[Rick Lee]

I hope they are sued out of business and the chief should be fired. Outrageous. However, I also blame the adults they arrested for consenting to searches of their cars. I always carry a gun, but don't rob banks. I will be traveling up that way in a few weeks and wouldn't think of consenting to anything.

[intakexhaust]

Intense situation and sure looks wrong to the general public. But at worst and if I was in that situation, by simply complying I would probably feel safer around the police and let them do their job. If you're guilty of something else and carrying illegal whatever, well I guess you've got some splaynin' to do
Last summer in and around Chicago, they had an incredible amount of bank robberies, but thankfully, nobody killed. Brazen hooligans with guns scare me but what their after is pittance compared to those Wall Street crooks. I'd love to see this wild police activity raid on some of those guys while in the middle of Manhatten.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Zeke

From my understanding, if the chief absolutely knew the perp was in one of the 19 cars, he had probable cause. I know this tests the issue and won't go down well. But, IMHO, he can do that.

I have my old law textbook in front of me, but I'm no attorney, did not receive a degree in law and did not sleep at the Holiday Inn.

You can detain people for a reasonable amount of time for questioning. Handcuffing them is technically an arrest. You CANNOT arrest citizens for being in the area of a crime. BIG screw up.

Not only were citizens illegally arrested, they were left handcuffed on the sidewalk with an armed, desperate bank robber among them! Good thing he failed his hostage taking class.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Moses

You can detain people for a reasonable amount of time for questioning. Handcuffing them is technically an arrest. You CANNOT arrest citizens for being in the area of a crime. BIG screw up.

Not only were citizens illegally arrested, they were left handcuffed on the sidewalk with an armed, desperate bank robber among them! Good thing he failed his hostage taking class.

I'm sure we will not be the only ones to debate this. Interestingly enough, I wrote a paper on this years ago. The first U.S. Supreme Court rulings on probable cause and due process were written a century ago and dozens of subsequent cases have built up around the basic ones over the years.

The language is too technical for me and certainly is open to interpretation as it is tested in the courts from time to time. The later cases of course involve warrantless wire tapping.

If no one pursues this handcuffing case, we'll never know. But, I do think there is precedence to justify the chief's actions, but only judicial. So, as a member of the self appointed Pelican jury, I vote for acquittal.

Much of the language that will be used to decide this issue will come from Terry v. Ohio — Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and there might be more from Kirk v. Louisiana which yielded to Payton v. New York.

A summation of that case from Wiki:
"Payton and related case law establish that the principle that a person in a home, particularly his or her own, is entitled to Constitutional protections of due process under the Fourth Amendment not afforded to persons in automobiles, as per Whren v. United States, or to persons in public, as per United States v. Watson."
(Payton v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

And so on it goes.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Moses

You can detain people for a reasonable amount of time for questioning. Handcuffing them is technically an arrest. You CANNOT arrest citizens for being in the area of a crime. BIG screw up.

I'm no lawyer, but before the cops can even detain someone, they need reasonable, articulable suspicion (aka RAS). Being an adult male operating one of 19 vehicles while the cops are searching for a guy in a car should not pass for RAS in any court in the country. Still, all the sheeple played along and consented to searches of their cars, which will probably help the cops in any lawsuit. I wonder if the cops will try an exigent circumstances defense.

[Zeke]

Rick, if there is a certainty of the perp being in 1 of 19 cars within a narrow geographic area and all they need to do is sort it out, why then is this a problem?

You are correct that anyone could have stepped away from their car locking it behind them. They have that right. In this circumstance, the police will tow the car to a compound and await a warrant. Ask me how I know.

So, you might as well consent if you have nothing to hide and be on your way.

2 hours does seem like a long time, though. I wonder what the explanation for that is.

[widgeon13]

Pretty outrageous and I can't imagine how he thought it was the safest method. If it was me I'd have headed straight to a lawyers office after being uncuffed.

Just another step in the wrong direction of usurping peoples rights!

[slakjaw]

The reason it took so long is because the other cops were all busy arresting people who cheer from that other thread.

[Zeke]

What other thread?

widgeon, what scenario would you have followed?

[Gogar]

Originally Posted by slakjaw

The reason it took so long is because the other cops were all busy arresting people who cheer from that other thread.

It took so long because the officers were busy smashing cellphones. A lot of people were out there taking pictures, you know.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Rick, if there is a certainty of the perp being in 1 of 19 cars within a narrow geographic area and all they need to do is sort it out, why then is this a problem?

You are correct that anyone could have stepped away from their car locking it behind them. They have that right. In this circumstance, the police will tow the car to a compound and await a warrant. Ask me how I know.

So, you might as well consent if you have nothing to hide and be on your way.

2 hours does seem like a long time, though. I wonder what the explanation for that is.

How can there be certainy of anything if they can't give a perp or vehicle description to narrow it down? I would need to see the geography, but it shouldn't be too hard to close the area down with road blocks and then take a look at each driver as they pass by.

I was pulled over once late at night with guns drawn and cops running up to yank me out of my van because it fit the description of the van they were looking for. In that case, they had RAS and let me go as soon as they saw who I didn't fit their perp's description). That's not what happened here.

And they wouldn't get a warrant for me or my car, so there'd be no point in even trying. For a warrant you need more than RAS, you need probable cause (PC), which they certainly would not have on me. However, they might be able to trump up some BS charge that allowed them to tow my car, which then allows them to inventory it. If I were stopped in a private parking lot, they couldn't even do that. Bottom line is I would never consent to anything and would be quick to call a lawyer if they cut corners so as to deter them from doing so in the future.

[intakexhaust]

Just a thought and although the above is debatable, what would be the case if someone was driving their home... as in a motor home? Take it further and suppose they were at a nearby park located where the action was, locked inside their motor home??

[widgeon13]

Originally Posted by Zeke

What other thread?

widgeon, what scenario would you have followed?

I say where they went wrong was corralling all the people and cuffing them. Car search as the vehicles approached a roadblock would have been much more reasonable. It allows everyone to stay in the safety of their own vehicle and be examined in an orderly manner under police supervision.

You can bet every one of those LEO's had vests on, taking those people from their cars exposed them to additional danger.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

I say where they went wrong was corralling all the people and cuffing them. Car search as the vehicles approached a roadblock would have been much more reasonable. It allows everyone to stay in the safety of their own vehicle and be examined in an orderly manner under police supervision.

You can bet every one of those LEO's had vests on, taking those people from their cars exposed them to additional danger.

No, car searches would not have been ok without a warrant or consent, though those sheeple did all consent, so it would have worked on that bunch. Not on me.

[Zeke]

Well, intake, we digress here a bit. But, though a motorhome might be considered a home for tax purposes, it's a motor vehicle in the eyes of the police while on the road. At a nearby park, it would be on public land. Therefore, subject to the same laws people in cars are.

For the benefit of those that believe this was an illegal search and detention, I offer:

Delaware v. Prouse

However, the key words in that case were "capricious detention." We'll see if any plaintiff's attorney takes that road.

And for Rick, here is what the above case indicated about spot checks, road blocks, etc.,
"(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative."

See the above link.

[widgeon13]

"(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative."

Perhaps I am wrong but I agree with the above approach.

[intakexhaust]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

No, car searches would not have been ok without a warrant or consent, though those sheeple did all consent, so it would have worked on that bunch. Not on me.

I see your viewpoint but under the circumstances and whether the strategy was right or wrong, wouldn't you think the cops would then become more aggressive towards you and pehaps others in your vehicle? In Chicago, you'd might be setting yourself up for a beating or worse. I probably would be a part of the 'sheep herd', comply and deal with the legal ramification later.