Aurora PD detain 40+ people

[Syco21]

Vagrant, the type if stop you mentioned is wholesale illegal if they do not have RAS that have or are committing a felony offense.

 

They can not arrest you at gun point and search your car simply for speeding. And people do make stinks about that. The difference is that is this involved over 40 people and created an incredibly dangerous situation without just cause. The motorists were in no danger until the police showed up in force, weapons drawn.

[Ghogiel]

A police officer pulling their gun when pulling over a speeder isn't uncommon if the officer has reason to suspect a threat. You may only see the flashlight, but there's a good chance they're holding a gun in their other hand as they tell you to keep your hands where they can see them, pull you out of the car, and pat you down for weapons or drugs as their partner searches the vehicle. If you protest or take any action against them they will usually cuff you, put you in the back of their car, and have your vehicle towed to where it can be thoroughly searched. This is standard procedure. I'm guessing you don't live near an urban center or get out much.

 

Well technically police can't pull you over for, in this case not even speeding, then just yank you out of the car and search it just to see what is in there. They need a warrant or your permission to legally search your car at a regular traffic stop.

 

Also I imagine you are a recluse who doesn't know urban anything. point? :thumbsup:

Edited June 9, 2012 by Ghogiel

[marharth]

Meh, I didn't know they were held at gunpoint, that is a bit excessive.

[HeyYou]

Meh, I didn't know they were held at gunpoint, that is a bit excessive.

 

Watch the video.... there are more guns showing than a redneck wedding. :D

[Vagrant0]

Well technically police can't pull you over for, in this case not even speeding, then just yank you out of the car and search it just to see what is in there. They need a warrant or your permission to legally search your car at a regular traffic stop.

 

Afraid not. If they have "probable cause" to suspect you of a criminal act, they don't need a warrant. They may ask for permission to cover their ass, but refusing them permission just means that they cuff you and do it anyway. I've had my car searched once when I was younger for going about 110 in a 65 MPH zone because I was running late, and again when because my vehicle resembled one which was used in a crime nearby. Both times I had a gun pointed at me before they made me get out of the vehicle while they searched. I've known a few people who have had similar experiences for "driving while black" or just being a teenage driver.

 

Maybe the police around me are just prone to being assholes. But if they believe themselves to be in danger when making a stop, they should be allowed to protect themselves in the course of their duty. They didn't know if I was just some kid, or if I was an armed drug dealer so precautions had to be taken. It's not like they beat me or used excessive force or anything silly. They stopped me, accessed the situation, took precautions, investigated, then took the necessary action.

 

Also I imagine you are a recluse who doesn't know urban anything. point?

Personal attacks are one of the reasons why this section has been going to hell. Making a joke or not, it isn't really called for. My situation now does not exclude my situation then. Please do not make assumptions.

 

 

 

Regardless... In this case, the only people who have any right to complain were those who were held. Unless those exact people come forward with a contention to how this was handled, we do not have any right to comment on the validity of what occurred. It's not like we were there or know the whole story.

[Syco21]

You're wrong on so many levels, Vagrant.

 

Afraid not. If they have "probable cause" to suspect you of a criminal act, they don't need a warrant. They may ask for permission to cover their ass, but refusing them permission just means that they cuff you and do it anyway.

This is true. BUT probable cause is a somewhat strict standard. Aurora PD definitely did not have probable cause to detain 40 people. They didn't even have reasonable articulable suspicion(RAS). Refusing a search is neither probable cause nor RAS. Being in the same area as a suspected criminal is neither probable cause nor RAS. They had no legal authority to do what they did.

 

I've had my car searched once when I was younger for going about 110 in a 65 MPH zone because I was running late, and again when because my vehicle resembled one which was used in a crime nearby. Both times I had a gun pointed at me before they made me get out of the vehicle while they searched. I've known a few people who have had similar experiences for "driving while black" or just being a teenage driver.

This is reminiscent of President Nixon. "If the police(President) do(es) it, then it's not illegal!" This is simply untrue and completely ridiculous. The police are human, not above the law and very much fallible. I have had police officers give me insanely illegal advice. Advice that could get you sent to the chair. But just because the police said it was okay, does not make it so.

 

Maybe the police around me are just prone to being assholes. But if they believe themselves to be in danger when making a stop, they should be allowed to protect themselves in the course of their duty. They didn't know if I was just some kid, or if I was an armed drug dealer so precautions had to be taken. It's not like they beat me or used excessive force or anything silly. They stopped me, accessed the situation, took precautions, investigated, then took the necessary action.

So long as the police aren't in any danger, doesn't matter if they put you into more danger than is absolutely necessary. Amirite? Because that is exactly what happened in Aurora.

 

Regardless... In this case, the only people who have any right to complain were those who were held. Unless those exact people come forward with a contention to how this was handled, we do not have any right to comment on the validity of what occurred. It's not like we were there or know the whole story.

You're wrong, all of our rights are intertwined. If my rights are being violated, there is nothing to stop them from violating your rights if you do not stand up and speak out. It's best to stop the violations before they happen to you, rather than waiting to become the next victim. After all, no one died in Aurora. But the same might not be true when it happens to you.

 

Never the less, the people involved are making complaints and pursuing legal options for restitution. And you can bet your bottom dollar that the defense will push the issue with hopes of getting the charges dropped on the grounds that the search was illegal.

[Tidus44]

It would appear that no one here is a lawyer and I will admit I am not either, but I used to enforce laws - but I never was a police officer, just a "person of authority" so the rules applied to me as well.

 

US Supreme Court Brendlin v. California, 2007

Fourth Amendment rights and most others in the Constitution are considered to be "personal." Each individual holds their own set of rights and cannot generally complain in court unless the individual in particular suffers a violation. The right of citizens to complain or voice concern is not limited by this decision.

 

I also understood that the standard for “Probable Cause” is;

"a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

 

While the standard exists, it is neither hard and fast nor clearly defined in specifics as to situation. A judge and/or the Supreme Court make decisions on probable cause and it seems the specifics of acceptable probable cause is defined by circumstances. I think of Terry v. Ohio where the Supreme Court identified, "the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes."

 

But, the situation in Aurora does not specifically fall under "probable cause" because "Detentions" do not require probable cause.

Temporary detentions (up to 48 hours - depending on circumstances) require only "reasonable suspicion." This includes car stops, pedestrian stops and detention of occupants. "Reasonable suspicion" means specific facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity was at hand and further investigation was required.

If the police met the “reasonable suspicion” criteria (and it too can be further defined by circumstances), then they can stop cars and detain persons and conduct warrantless searches generally upon consent, but that isn't specifically clear either and again would be judged in a Court by a legal professional.

 

Again I am not a lawyer, and even if I were I would think and would point out the decision on the Aurora police actions will be judged by a legal professional as to the acceptability or non acceptability and not in the forums where not all the facts are known and it seems definitions and information about "rights" is not specifically within legal parameters but moreso personal opinion.

 

As for the above, I only point this out as information as there is more to legal precedent and legal decisions than hard and fast rules. The information above may have also changed through some further decision.

 

Do I agree with what the Aurora Police did? A video and some slanted media reports (and - please - a youtube video? Yeah that's a good thing to form an opinion on) don't give me sufficient information to say one way or another.

 

What I will say is that the police did what they did based upon what they felt was the best action at the time and time. A legal professional will tell if they were correct or incorrect in their actions.

 

20-20 hindsight is "perfect" and while I do hear a lot (and not just at this forum) about how wrong the police were, I don't see/hear very much about what those voices of concern would have done in the situation.

[Vagrant0]

Pretty much that /\

 

The other thing is this... What would filing charges actually accomplish in this exact case. None of the evidence suggests that these people suffered any physical harm to themselves or any of their property. None of the people required medical assistance because of the "extreme force" employed by officers. As much as having a gun pointed at you might be unsettling, is that really enough to claim emotional damages? So really, about the only actual harm that might have happened because of this would be lost time. At which point, the people who were held at gunpoint while that bank was robbed should be able to sue the gunman for those very same damages. But that doesn't happen because there isn't any money in it.

 

Meanwhile, the city would lose quite a lot in having to deal with trials, carrying out of charges against all the officers in question, hiring dozens of new officers, as well as paying whatever else lawyers might try to claim for their "clients". Meaning that even if none of the actual people involved make any statements, trial lawyers can take their own cut, and force the city to defend the necessity of their actions, and the city essentially loses either way. The same city funding that helps pay for schools, roads, services, and is paid by tax payers is also used to deal with any legal problems the city might face.

 

The only real problem here is that wrongdoing being claimed by people who don't know the situation, aren't directly involved, but are screaming "Fascist Police State" all the way to the bank. Sure, it sucks that these people were in the wrong place at the wrong time... But there's never a right place at the wrong time, life sucks, s*** will always happen, and some inconveniences cannot be avoided. The important thing is that no harm was done and police were able to apprehend someone who posed a risk to society.

[Syco21]

It would appear that no one here is a lawyer and I will admit I am not either, but I used to enforce laws - but I never was a police officer, just a "person of authority" so the rules applied to me as well.

You used to enforce laws but not as a police officer? What does that mean? Your appeal to authority was a nice attempt. But as you said, you're neither a lawyer nor police officer. Not that it would matter if you were police officer, they're less reliable than a first year law student as to what is legal and what isn't.

 

US Supreme Court Brendlin v. California, 2007

Fourth Amendment rights and most others in the Constitution are considered to be "personal." Each individual holds their own set of rights and cannot generally complain in court unless the individual in particular suffers a violation. The right of citizens to complain or voice concern is not limited by this decision.

What's your point here? That we shouldn't be discussing the situation because we don't have standing to bring the case to court? Perhaps you did not understand that last sentence: "The right of the citizens to complain or voice concern is not limited by this decision."

 

I also understood that the standard for "Probable Cause" is;

"a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

 

While the standard exists, it is neither hard and fast nor clearly defined in specifics as to situation. A judge and/or the Supreme Court make decisions on probable cause and it seems the specifics of acceptable probable cause is defined by circumstances. I think of Terry v. Ohio where the Supreme Court identified, "the State may interfere with an individual's Fourth Amendment interests with less than probable cause and without a warrant if the intrusion is only minimal and is justified by law enforcement purposes."

Just as you can not get a search warrant to go door to door, you can not use probable cause for a dragnet in this fashion. There is probable cause that there is a criminal, but no probable cause that any one of those individuals is the criminal moreso than a random person walking down the street may have robbed a liquor store.

 

But, the situation in Aurora does not specifically fall under "probable cause" because "Detentions" do not require probable cause.

Temporary detentions (up to 48 hours - depending on circumstances) require only "reasonable suspicion." This includes car stops, pedestrian stops and detention of occupants. "Reasonable suspicion" means specific facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity was at hand and further investigation was required.

If the police met the "reasonable suspicion" criteria (and it too can be further defined by circumstances), then they can stop cars and detain persons and conduct warrantless searches generally upon consent, but that isn't specifically clear either and again would be judged in a Court by a legal professional.

But that's just it. There were no specific facts that would lead the officers to believe that any one of those stopped were the bank robber. All they had to go on was he or she might have been there at that time. They didn't know what kind of car to look for or the suspects age, gender or race.

 

Again I am not a lawyer, and even if I were I would think and would point out the decision on the Aurora police actions will be judged by a legal professional as to the acceptability or non acceptability and not in the forums where not all the facts are known and it seems definitions and information about "rights" is not specifically within legal parameters but moreso personal opinion.

We know enough to discuss the merits of the stop.

 

From what the police have stated:

They had no idea what the individual looked like, how old they were or their sex.

They did not know what kind of vehicle they were driving.

All they knew was that the robber might be stopped at a specific intersection, nothing more.

They pulled over and detained over 40 people in what was potentially a very volatile situation while looking for an armed robber.

 

20-20 hindsight is "perfect" and while I do hear a lot (and not just at this forum) about how wrong the police were, I don't see/hear very much about what those voices of concern would have done in the situation.

Nothing, because "your robber might be at this intersection" is not enough information to warrant action. Let alone placing those detained in danger by placing them in a situation that could easily result in a shootout. A situation they would not have been in otherwise.

 

Meanwhile, the city would lose quite a lot in having to deal with trials, carrying out of charges against all the officers in question, hiring dozens of new officers, as well as paying whatever else lawyers might try to claim for their "clients". Meaning that even if none of the actual people involved make any statements, trial lawyers can take their own cut, and force the city to defend the necessity of their actions, and the city essentially loses either way. The same city funding that helps pay for schools, roads, services, and is paid by tax payers is also used to deal with any legal problems the city might face.

That's a good thing.

 

The important thing is that no harm was done and police were able to apprehend someone who posed a risk to society.

There was no risk to anyone at that particular point in time until the police showed up waving guns at people.

[Tidus44]

Syco21

 

I am assuming there is a reading comprehension or perhaps a language issue present as I am not sure what you are asking, pointing out or even trying to debate.

 

I take it from your post that you were either there as a witness, as a police officer or as a lawyer and have all of the facts in detail readily at hand and in addition, have investigated the situation and are well educated in judicial law and authorized to make decisions regarding the rights of citizens and the legality of police actions. This being the case, I bow to your superior knowledge of the situation, of criminal and civil law and will concede that you are correct. I wait with bated breath to hear how you judge this particular case from the bench, m’lord (or whatever term is used in the US).

 

However, if you are just another layman posting to a forum like me, then all I will say is that your opinions about rights, the law and its enforcement and that the information you may have gleaned from the media (please just don’t tell me it was youtube –please) are no more relevant to the situation than dust bunnies under a bed and about as important or meaningful. As I stated in my post, I’ll wait for those with the education and training to say what the facts are and whether the police did something wrong or not.

 

While you state a police officer may not have the knowledge of a first year law student, most citizens have even less knowledge than a police officer, so your point is accepted and I will take that into consideration for my final responses to you.

 

I believe I made this statement quite clearly, but I have no idea what you read or thought you read.

"The right of the citizens to complain or voice concern is not limited by this decision." (Which by the way states you can’t sue the police unless you think you had your rights violated).

As you did not seem to understand this sentence, then I will explain what it means in very simple terms and using very small words for you.

Go ahead, feel free, and cry, whine and yell as much as you want about things you have no education to judge or actual facts about – it’s your right to do so.

 

My next point was

Again I am not a lawyer, and even if I were I would think and would point out the decision on the Aurora police actions will be judged by a legal professional as to the acceptability or non acceptability and not in the forums where not all the facts are known and it seems definitions and information about "rights" is not specifically within legal parameters but moreso personal opinion.

 

You can express as much uninformed and inappropriate personal opinion as you would like (it is your right, I said so directly above this – go ahead and read it again if need be); however, I will wait for an informed, educated decision based upon the actual facts that comes from a legal professional.

 

As for your “nothing” response to the situation – please, please, please become a police officer and let me know where and when you are working. I’d love to be a criminal in the community where you would be stationed, I’d be rich and scot free in no time.