Now, normally I am generally ok with a consensual search because I want the officer to feel at ease and I have nothing to hide nor do my passengers. However, I'm pretty sure this would tick me off enough to tell the officer they can go ahead and pound sand when they want to search my car as part of a search where the only criteria was being stopped at a traffic light. Sorry, you've got to do better than that to get me to suspend my rights. Maybe if my car matched a description (color, make, model, year, etc) then I would understand. But a blanket search like this is unreasonable. If I were that last person to be search (TWO HOURS LATER!) I would certainly be considering a lawsuit.
Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber
“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.”
The search lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect.
We, the people, will rue the day that we willingly allow "the end justifies the means" police work. I'm glad that they found the BG but if I had been one of the adults handcuffed, Aurora would be paying me handsomely for their effort.
knotquiteawake wrote:Now, normally I am generally ok with a consensual search because I want the officer to feel at ease and I have nothing to hide nor do my passengers. However, I'm pretty sure this would tick me off enough to tell the officer they can go ahead and pound sand when they want to search my car as part of a search where the only criteria was being stopped at a traffic light. Sorry, you've got to do better than that to get me to suspend my rights. Maybe if my car matched a description (color, make, model, year, etc) then I would understand. But a blanket search like this is unreasonable. If I were that last person to be search (TWO HOURS LATER!) I would certainly be considering a lawsuit.
Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber
“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.”
The search lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect.
Either it is okay or it is not. The more people let the police get away with this the more they will abuse it. The "I have nothing to hide" attitude bolsters law enforcements belief that they can get away with it and the sheeple will comply.
From the article:
“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.
Just think about what law enforcement could come up with to justify a search. "The suspect was seen in XYZ Apartments." Let's search the entire apartment building. "We think the suspect went down that street." Let's search every house on the block.
No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor. -- Murdock v. Pennsylvania If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity. -- Shuttleworth v. City of Birmingham
“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.
Holy COW! No description, not even gender and they stop 19 vehicles and handcuff everybody?!?!? And this took up to two hours?!?!? I would have been furious if I was in the dragnet.
LC9s, M&P 22, 9c, Sig P238-P239-P226-P365XL, 1911 clone
I should re-clarify. I am ok with a search if do actually closely match the description of the person they are looking for. Because in that case its understandable why they stopped me and why they want to search my vehicle. Hey, if I look like "the guy" then I look like "the guy" and the quicker they realize I'm not "the guy" the sooner they catch the real bad guy.
The article above though is just a blanket search. Searching people simply because they were there (wrong place wrong time), not because they matched a description of any kind.
...this is one case where I'd sue for all I could get...absolutely no reason for this to have been done...or allowed to be done...baaaaaaaaaa bbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I know what my own thoughts on the matter are, but I would be particularly interested in gigag04's and any other currently active LEO's opinions on this kind of thing. On one hand, I completely understand why the police in this story did what they did. That does not mean I agree with it, but I do understand it. I agree that it is troubling, not just for what actually happened, but eveen more importantly because of the precedent it sets. It IS a slippery slope. I can easily see such tactics being used in other situations going forward because this police department got away with it in this situation. "Detain everybody and sort them all out later" could easily become the law of the land.
It's one thing to detain everybody in one car, pending identifying which one of them is the wanted person. It is another thing entirely to detain every person at a busy intersection (19 carloads, if I remember correctly) to find the one. There ought to be some kind of minimum threshhold of detail provided in a tip which must be attained in order to act on it. That threshhold should include a physical description of the wanted person, and at least a general description of the car ("it was a blue compact"). If not, then the automatic extension of what happened in this story is when police get a phone call saying that a bank robber of unknown description is hiding in a house of unknown description located near the intersection of Main and Elm streets. Well, that description would include every person in every home extending a block down Main in both directions and a block down Elm in both directions. It could amount to several hundred people, depending on the neighborhood. So in this case, the police knock on each door, announce that they are looking for a bankrobber, ask for permission to enter and search the home, but handcuff everyone in the home........all without a warrant.
It really doesn't matter if the residents cooperate and agree to be handcuffed. What if they said "no," and refused to submit to being cuffed? Are they criminals for "impeding" an investigation, or are they citizens standing up for their rights? OR.......do we no longer have any rights? Just how much or how little credibility does an informant have to have before his/her tips result in a general detention of everyone in the area? In their zeal, did the police department in question help or hurt community relations? Was the trade off in loss of community good will worth the apprehension of the suspect? And finally, where does it all stop?
When I ask for LEO opinions, it is not in the spirit of "J'accuse!" I genuinely would like to know how police departments balance the mission of capturing an armed and dangerous felon with the need to be respectful of the rights of those whose taxes pay their salaries; and to what extent they train their officers to have that respect for individual rights while still performing the mission.
I am pretty sure that none of the founders would have submitted to being cuffed and detained in a general search of the population, either in their carriages or in their homes. One could say, "well everybody knows Ben Franklin....of course we're not going to assume that he's the robber." But Ben Franklin would be one of the first to remind the officers that citizens have rights and to mind that they (the officers) don't behave like the redcoats. WHAT IF the Mayor of Aurora Colorado had been in one of those vehicles? Would they have cuffed and detained him during that search? The probable answer is "no," they would not have. But if not, why not? Does the mayor have rights not available to "mere" citizens? In a day and age when mayors have been known to traffic in crack cocaine and accept huge bribes for favors rendered, how can anyone claim that a mayor is any less likely to be an armed felon than any other citizen?
As I said at the top, I completely understand the tactical necessities with which the police in Aurora thought they were dealing, but how far can "tactical necessity" be pushed before police have crossed a line from "law enforcement" to "law-breaking," and what exactly IS the common LEO's view of the rights of the citizenry? Are they viewed as an impediment to getting the job done, or are they viewed as something sacrosant which must be honored in the breach, even when it makes their job more difficult?
This is a critical question because there is absolutely no doubt that an orderly society needs an effective police force, but the effectiveness of a police force is directly correlational to the relationship it has with the community in which it operates. If the police are viewed as a beneficial presence in the community, then they will have the cooperation of that community and their job will be easier. If the police are viewed as armed invaders imposing an unwanted authority on the community, then their job will be much harder. The latter scenario is the one which produces a higher body count on both sides. Worse yet, once that threshhold from beneficial presence to unwanted authority has been crossed, the community trust which is absolutely essential to effective policing has also been broken. The blame for this can be accrued to both sides. Corrupted culture can be as much to blame as overarching authoritariansim, but the poisonous effects of culture can rarely be changed. Police departments, on the other hand, ought to know better. They DO know better. The only variable is how much importance top level managment places on being mindful of whom they serve—the citizenry, or the political structure in place. In any case, such scenarios are often beyond redemption once attained, which is exactly why this is a slippery slope issue.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
knotquiteawake wrote:I should re-clarify. I am ok with a search if do actually closely match the description of the person they are looking for. Because in that case its understandable why they stopped me and why they want to search my vehicle. Hey, if I look like "the guy" then I look like "the guy" and the quicker they realize I'm not "the guy" the sooner they catch the real bad guy.
The article above though is just a blanket search. Searching people simply because they were there (wrong place wrong time), not because they matched a description of any kind.
I think you'd potentially be making a huge mistake. Never allow the police to search your vehicle. If you closely match the description they already have cause and don't need your permission. You 100% sure of what's in that vehicle? You've never let ANYONE else drive or ride in it? I can imagine any number of scenarios that could end badly for you in a search. You could well be rolling the dice on a life changing event.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
knotquiteawake wrote:I should re-clarify. I am ok with a search if do actually closely match the description of the person they are looking for. Because in that case its understandable why they stopped me and why they want to search my vehicle. Hey, if I look like "the guy" then I look like "the guy" and the quicker they realize I'm not "the guy" the sooner they catch the real bad guy.
The article above though is just a blanket search. Searching people simply because they were there (wrong place wrong time), not because they matched a description of any kind.
I think you'd potentially be making a huge mistake. Never allow the police to search your vehicle. If you closely match the description they already have cause and don't need your permission. You 100% sure of what's in that vehicle? You've never let ANYONE else drive or ride in it? I can imagine any number of scenarios that could end badly for you in a search. You could well be rolling the dice on a life changing event.
It falls within the limits of "acceptable risk" for me. To each their own.
The Annoyed Man wrote:I know what my own thoughts on the matter are, but I would be particularly interested in gigag04's and any other currently active LEO's opinions on this kind of thing. On one hand, I completely understand why the police in this story did what they did. That does not mean I agree with it, but I do understand it. I agree that it is troubling, not just for what actually happened, but eveen more importantly because of the precedent it sets. It IS a slippery slope. I can easily see such tactics being used in other situations going forward because this police department got away with it in this situation. "Detain everybody and sort them all out later" could easily become the law of the land.
It's one thing to detain everybody in one car, pending identifying which one of them is the wanted person. It is another thing entirely to detain every person at a busy intersection (19 carloads, if I remember correctly) to find the one. There ought to be some kind of minimum threshhold of detail provided in a tip which must be attained in order to act on it. That threshhold should include a physical description of the wanted person, and at least a general description of the car ("it was a blue compact"). If not, then the automatic extension of what happened in this story is when police get a phone call saying that a bank robber of unknown description is hiding in a house of unknown description located near the intersection of Main and Elm streets. Well, that description would include every person in every home extending a block down Main in both directions and a block down Elm in both directions. It could amount to several hundred people, depending on the neighborhood. So in this case, the police knock on each door, announce that they are looking for a bankrobber, ask for permission to enter and search the home, but handcuff everyone in the home........all without a warrant.
It really doesn't matter if the residents cooperate and agree to be handcuffed. What if they said "no," and refused to submit to being cuffed? Are they criminals for "impeding" an investigation, or are they citizens standing up for their rights? OR.......do we no longer have any rights? Just how much or how little credibility does an informant have to have before his/her tips result in a general detention of everyone in the area? In their zeal, did the police department in question help or hurt community relations? Was the trade off in loss of community good will worth the apprehension of the suspect? And finally, where does it all stop?
When I ask for LEO opinions, it is not in the spirit of "J'accuse!" I genuinely would like to know how police departments balance the mission of capturing an armed and dangerous felon with the need to be respectful of the rights of those whose taxes pay their salaries; and to what extent they train their officers to have that respect for individual rights while still performing the mission.
I am pretty sure that none of the founders would have submitted to being cuffed and detained in a general search of the population, either in their carriages or in their homes. One could say, "well everybody knows Ben Franklin....of course we're not going to assume that he's the robber." But Ben Franklin would be one of the first to remind the officers that citizens have rights and to mind that they (the officers) don't behave like the redcoats. WHAT IF the Mayor of Aurora Colorado had been in one of those vehicles? Would they have cuffed and detained him during that search? The probable answer is "no," they would not have. But if not, why not? Does the mayor have rights not available to "mere" citizens? In a day and age when mayors have been known to traffic in crack cocaine and accept huge bribes for favors rendered, how can anyone claim that a mayor is any less likely to be an armed felon than any other citizen?
As I said at the top, I completely understand the tactical necessities with which the police in Aurora thought they were dealing, but how far can "tactical necessity" be pushed before police have crossed a line from "law enforcement" to "law-breaking," and what exactly IS the common LEO's view of the rights of the citizenry? Are they viewed as an impediment to getting the job done, or are they viewed as something sacrosant which must be honored in the breach, even when it makes their job more difficult?
This is a critical question because there is absolutely no doubt that an orderly society needs an effective police force, but the effectiveness of a police force is directly correlational to the relationship it has with the community in which it operates. If the police are viewed as a beneficial presence in the community, then they will have the cooperation of that community and their job will be easier. If the police are viewed as armed invaders imposing an unwanted authority on the community, then their job will be much harder. The latter scenario is the one which produces a higher body count on both sides. Worse yet, once that threshhold from beneficial presence to unwanted authority has been crossed, the community trust which is absolutely essential to effective policing has also been broken. The blame for this can be accrued to both sides. Corrupted culture can be as much to blame as overarching authoritariansim, but the poisonous effects of culture can rarely be changed. Police departments, on the other hand, ought to know better. They DO know better. The only variable is how much importance top level managment places on being mindful of whom they serve—the citizenry, or the political structure in place. In any case, such scenarios are often beyond redemption once attained, which is exactly why this is a slippery slope issue.
Some of your analysis depends on the assumption that there was an anonymous tip. Given the history of "anonymous tips" I think there is good reason to doubt there was any such tip in the first place. But even if there was, the "anonymous tip" is easily abused. The police have been known to have a fellow officer phone in an anonymous tip, but really, all someone has to do is say they got one from a passerby on the street. I think the issue comes back to probable cause, and the fact that they had no description of either the perp or the vehicle and had to stop and detain some 19 vehicles proves they didn't have it.
Last edited by VMI77 on Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
...forget the suits of the violated innocent citizens for a minute...
...when the defense lawyer stands up in court and demands that the evidence obtained by illegal, warrantless search after detention for no probable cause...let the prosecutor TRY to show the judge that this was a "reasonable" suspicion...I think this guy'll beat the rap...they MAY stand a chance if he was stupid enough to consent to them searching his vehicle...
The Annoyed Man wrote:
I am pretty sure that none of the founders would have submitted to being cuffed and detained in a general search of the population, either in their carriages or in their homes. One could say, "well everybody knows Ben Franklin....of course we're not going to assume that he's the robber." But Ben Franklin would be one of the first to remind the officers that citizens have rights and to mind that they (the officers) don't behave like the redcoats. WHAT IF the Mayor of Aurora Colorado had been in one of those vehicles? Would they have cuffed and detained him during that search? The probable answer is "no," they would not have. But if not, why not? Does the mayor have rights not available to "mere" citizens? In a day and age when mayors have been known to traffic in crack cocaine and accept huge bribes for favors rendered, how can anyone claim that a mayor is any less likely to be an armed felon than any other citizen?
Of course they have "rights" not available to "mere" citizens. Mayors, among other putative public servants, are often mighty, wise and elite. They are NOT part of the mere peasant rabble that they lord over. I know they are the extreme examples (though far from the only ones) but look at Bloomberg, or Rahm Emmanuel. I have very, very little doubt in my mind that either one of those men could do whatever they want and get away with it unscathed, no matter how outrageous a thing it may be. And so it goes, to lesser and lesser degrees, down the hierarchy of cities and towns. The SYSTEM is rotten, not just the individuals.
"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
...this quote has been attributed to Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson...both were wise, patriotic Americans, who knew that liberty must be fought for...not handed over at the asking...
Surely those who are pro-DUI checkpoints are pro-this incident? Stop everyone, prove innocence before you can pass. Both are for "public safety"...think of the children, right?
*NRA Endowment Member* | Veteran Vote Adam Kraut for the NRA Board of Directors - http://www.adamkraut.com/
I was reading a story about this on one of the Local Aurora websites and two things stood out to me, both of which were found in the comments section. First was how many people thought it was great that police shoved guns in the faces of everyone at that intersection, forced them out of their cars to be handcuffed and placed on the ground until they found the bank robber. Second was the comments of someone who was one of those involved who was claiming that he and his family were removed from their automobile at gun point long after the cops had already found the bank robber.
