Unreasonable Search and Seizure?

[HankD]

Colorado, a Police State?

Following the report of a bank robbery, Aurora, CO police stopped, detained and handcuffed all adults and searched their cars (19 automobiles) at a stop light after receiving a hunch/tip.

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...lt-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

Definition: Unreasonable Search and Seizure

unreasonable search and seizure n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unreasonable+search+and+seizure

So they found what they "believed" to be the robber but does that justify an unreasonable search and seizure clearly forbidden by the law of the land?

Police State violation of the 4th amendment waiting for a lawsuit or "they were just doing their job"?


HankD

 

[DiamondLady]

Colorado, a Police State?

Following the report of a bank robbery, Aurora, CO police stopped, detained and handcuffed all adults and searched their cars (19 automobiles) at a stop light after receiving a hunch/tip.

So they found what they "believed" to be the robber but does that justify an unreasonable search and seizure clearly forbidden by the law of the land?

Police State violation of the 4th amendment waiting for a lawsuit or "they were just doing their job"?


HankD

IMO....they were clearly doing their job.

 

[HankD]

IMO....they were clearly doing their job.

Well, I would agree that they thought they were doing their job.

However, in order to have "probable cause" they would have to had at least a car make and model to constitute a reasonable search and seizure.

Being an adult stopped at a traffic light does not constitute probable cause of bank robbery.

But I guess it's a moot point since American citizens can be blown up without due process at the behest of the president.

Just making a point DiamondLady.

Thanks
HankD

 

[targus]

I would say that they were doing their job.

IMO the bank robbery and tip information constituted reasonable cause.

The search action was contained to a relatively small area - a specific traffic intersection and only involved 19 vehicles.

The detaining of the adults was necessary to contain the investigation scene - so the suspect could not flee the intersection.

Not much different than when the police close down a crime scene and do not let people leave the building without first being questioned.

If I were to happen to be one of those stopped and understood that the police were attempting to capture an armed bank robber, I would have no problem with the temporary inconvenience and would be happy that the police were doing their job.

Armed robbers are a safety hazard to the local community.

 

[HankD]

I would say that they were doing their job.

IMO the bank robbery and tip information constituted reasonable cause.

The search action was contained to a relatively small area - a specific traffic intersection and only involved 19 vehicles.

The detaining of the adults was necessary to contain the investigation scene - so the suspect could not flee the intersection.

Not much different than when the police close down a crime scene and do not let people leave the building without first being questioned.

If I were to happen to be one of those stopped and understood that the police were attempting to capture an armed bank robber, I would have no problem with the temporary inconvenience and would be happy that the police were doing their job.

Armed robbers are a safety hazard to the local community.

I would still like to see it legally tested in court.

HankD

 

[targus]

However, in order to have "probable cause" they would have to had at least a car make and model to constitute a reasonable search and seizure.

Being an adult stopped at a traffic light does not constitute probable cause of bank robbery.

I am guessing that time was a factor - if the perp was in a car he could get pretty far pretty quick.

If the person providing the tip was unable to give a specific identification of the car or perp but was able to grab a police officer and say "he's right there in a car at that stop light" it does not seem unreasonable for the police at hand to simply hold all of the cars while they sort things out.

 

[freeatlast]

Colorado, a Police State?

Following the report of a bank robbery, Aurora, CO police stopped, detained and handcuffed all adults and searched their cars (19 automobiles) at a stop light after receiving a hunch/tip.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlin...lt-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

Definition: Unreasonable Search and Seizure


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unreasonable+search+and+seizure

So they found what they "believed" to be the robber but does that justify an unreasonable search and seizure clearly forbidden by the law of the land?

Police State violation of the 4th amendment waiting for a lawsuit or "they were just doing their job"?


HankD

Yes this is a step topwards a police state and this kind of thing will increase until we are a military state.

 

[targus]

Yes this is a step topwards a police state and this kind of thing will increase until we are a military state.

Aren't you the same guy that advocates for police snipers taking head shots on people out after curfew? :laugh:

 

[HankD]

I am guessing that time was a factor - if the perp was in a car he could get pretty far pretty quick.

If the person providing the tip was unable to give a specific identification of the car or perp but was able to grab a police officer and say "he's right there in a car at that stop light" it does not seem unreasonable for the police at hand to simply hold all of the cars while they sort things out.

True, there is a measure of "reasonableness" about the situation, but does it rise to the level of probable cause to blanket the innocent along with the guilty?

How far geographically does reasonableness extend to the innocent.

Can the police break down my door and search for contraband just because of a "tip" that some one in my town is manufacturing drugs?

Once a presidence is set it's not long before it becomes the unwritten law and then the written law.

HankD

 

[targus]

True, there is a measure of "reasonableness" about the situation, but does it rise to the level of probable cause to blanket the innocent along with the guilty?

How far geographically does reasonableness extend to the innocent.

Can the police break down my door and search for contraband just because of a "tip" that some one in my town is manufacturing drugs?

Once a presidence is set it's not long before it becomes the unwritten law and then the written law.

HankD

Wouldn't the "reasonable man" standard apply?

In my mind a search as described at a specific intersection is "reasonable".

A similar search at every intersection in a city would not be.

The particular circumstances of a given situation are taken into consideration when applying the "reasonable man" standard.

 

[billwald]

Yes, it was unreasonable. It was a mass arrest without probable cause.

 

[freeatlast]

True, there is a measure of "reasonableness" about the situation, but does it rise to the level of probable cause to blanket the innocent along with the guilty?

How far geographically does reasonableness extend to the innocent.

Can the police break down my door and search for contraband just because of a "tip" that some one in my town is manufacturing drugs?

Once a presidence is set it's not long before it becomes the unwritten law and then the written law.

HankD

A couple years ago in Houston a HPD Sergeant decided to follow the same policy as mentioned here and detained around 100 innocent people trying to find who was loitering at a near by parking lot. It cost him his job along with several others who went along with him and some received other punishment. There is NEVER a good reason to allow law enforcement/government to violate the freedoms and rights of any individual or group to catch a criminal or solve a crime. Once it is allowed it is a slippery slope, and we are already on it because of liberals, that leads to the permanent loss of freedoms and protections under our laws turning us into a military state.

 

[targus]

Yes, it was unreasonable. It was a mass arrest without probable cause.

So when someone is stopped by the police but not taken into custody or charged that is still an "arrest"?

 

[freeatlast]

True, there is a measure of "reasonableness" about the situation, but does it rise to the level of probable cause to blanket the innocent along with the guilty?

How far geographically does reasonableness extend to the innocent.

Can the police break down my door and search for contraband just because of a "tip" that some one in my town is manufacturing drugs?

Once a presidence is set it's not long before it becomes the unwritten law and then the written law.

HankD

There is never anything reasonable about violating the rights and freedoms of the innocent. That is why we have a constitution although we are more and more deciding it has no value.

 

[freeatlast]

So when someone is stopped by the police but not taken into custody or charged that is still an "arrest"?

It is detention with out a cause. There has to be a violation of law to detain someone. Just pulling people to search them is a violation of law.

 

[targus]

It is detention with out a cause. There has to be a violation of law to detain someone. Just pulling people to search them is a violation of law.

No - not without a cause.

There was an armed bank robbery and a tip telling the police that the robber was in a car at that intersection.

How exactly should the police have handled that information in that case?

(<pa attack deleted - LE>)

 

[freeatlast]

No - not without a cause.

There was an armed bank robbery and a tip telling the police that the robber was in a car at that intersection.

How exactly should the police have handled that information in that case?

(<pa deleted - LE>)

They should have handled as our law requires. Just because someone robs a bank and is wearing clothing you do not stop every person on the block with clothes on.
The fact that people were in cars is not a reasonable assumption that they are bank robbers. The police violated the freedoms and rights of the citizens and they should be fired as well as arrested and prosecuted for official oppression.

 

[targus]

They should have handled as our law requires.

What does the law require the police to do when there has been an armed bank robbery in the area and a witness says that the robber is in a vehicle at a particular traffic intersection?

Not that I expect you to actually answer a direct question.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

No way.

There were several people who had their rights violated. I find this very offensive.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yes, you are required to tell somebody they are under arrest, and inform them of their rights before you handcuff them. Police do not have the authority to handcuff bystanders out of convenience.

And unless you ARE under arrest, police are required to obtain permission from you to search your car. On second read I see that was met. But I stand by my first statement.

I hope some punitive damages are coming.