Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently, they caught him in this search. I don't like the idea of what they did but it sounded like they were respectful and asked those present for their help. Since he was armed it certainly is safer for them to handcuff everyone until they can sort through. Had they not done it and he started shooting they would have been criticized for doing that wrong. They really had a no win situation and they erred on the side of caution.
No, you are wrong. I can't recall anybody criticizing LE for gunmen shooting people.
And by the way, they actually increased the danger of a shooting. A bank robber has no reason to shoot people driving down the road, but he might shoot to get out of a police blockade.
Actually what the Officers did was illegal. Officers must have "Probable Cause" or a "Reasonable Suspicion" that a specific person or group of persons committed an illegal act before detaining them.
The citizen's Fourth Amendment Rights were also violated.
There will be some settlements in the near future.
Absolutely! I hope they sue and these cops get fired. Abuse of power is one of the worst crimes, and people anywhere who abuse power should be prosecuted.
It would have cost the society less to let the bank robber escape than to terrorize uninvolved citizens. What the police have done is create a substantial number of citizens that will never trust or cooperate with the police ever again.
Correct. Activities like this has led to a large amount of LE distrust.
The police did a smart move in finding and arresting an armed fugitive.
Many on here would be the first to cry like a baby IF the police had let the crook escape and ending up killing someone.
No where is it claimed that the people stopped were "terrorized' as you make a false claim.
What the police were doing was explained to them and they willfully co-operated.
Then you would have been quite comfortable with Nazi Germany.
The end does not justify the means. Using your logic, the policy should bust into every home in America...because we know that a certain number of homes contain people with stolen or illegal goods. They would surely find some criminals, and using your logic, prevent more crimes.
No thank you. I'll take a few criminals over a police force that abuses it's power.
And being handcuffed illegally by cops who have taken the law into their own hands is "terrorizing" in my book.
I don't have a problem with this case per se, since they were going after an actual criminal, a bank robber. I am loathe to just let that guy get away. What if your wife, sister, or daughter were a bank teller? You'd want them to detain the whole town to catch him.
But what happens if police extend this method to non-criminals such as druggies, sex for money, or sodas greater than 16 ounces? Yesterday I had to go to a clinic to get stitches after cutting my hand. I had to sign a bunch of paperwork, including one that warned that I would be convicted of a class-C felony if I lied on the paperwork.
We've got such a cobweb system of laws now that I suppose we're reaching the point where we have to tolerate a certain tolerance for bank robbers in order to restrain police/courts.
Without a warrent I would be very reluctant to have the police search myself or my vehicle. I would have told them I will cooperate with their investigation but I will not tolerate a search unless they arrest me. I want to know the charges and be informed of my rights. With a warrent I would have no choice but I would not like it.
I don't have a problem with this case per se, since they were going after an actual criminal, a bank robber. I am loathe to just let that guy get away. What if your wife, sister, or daughter were a bank teller? You'd want them to detain the whole town to catch him.
But what happens if police extend this method to non-criminals such as druggies, sex for money, or sodas greater than 16 ounces? Yesterday I had to go to a clinic to get stitches after cutting my hand. I had to sign a bunch of paperwork, including one that warned that I would be convicted of a class-C felony if I lied on the paperwork.
We've got such a cobweb system of laws now that I suppose we're reaching the point where we have to tolerate a certain tolerance for bank robbers in order to restrain police/courts.
"But what happens". But, it didn't, did it?
You can "what if" all day long.
ANY police force or individual officer can abuse his power. Fact is hundreds of thousands DON'T ever day.
This was a unique case and the police made a call and apprehended the crook. Good for them.
Without a warrent I would be very reluctant to have the police search myself or my vehicle. I would have told them I will cooperate with their investigation but I will not tolerate a search unless they arrest me. I want to know the charges and be informed of my rights. With a warrent I would have no choice but I would not like it.
"In the United States if a person is stopped they can NOT search your car without a warrant unless you consent, however if they suspect something they can. If anything is found they will have to prove that they had "just cause" without a warrant or consent or it will be thrown out. I worked in the Law Enforcement field for several years. Tried to make it as short, simple & to the point as I could. Hope it helps."
Answer
This is a question that I have been frequently asked. As previously stated, Laws vary from state to state, however all states must comply with the US constitution in regards to the Fourth Amendment. The fourth amendment, to paraphrase, basically protects a person's right to be secure in their property and person, papers. Consent to search is needed for all vehicular searches unless exigent circumstance exists. [LEFT]
Read more: Can a cop search your vehicle without your consent
I would have demanded a search warrant especially if they had handcuffed me.
Explain the situation, ask if you can search me and I might oblige. Stop me and handcuff me on my way to the kids ballgame and you are not going to get me to co-operate.
They don't need a search warrant unless it's to inspect your trunk over your objection. Handcuffing doesn't require a search warrant or it'd be called a cuffing warrant. If you don't cooperate, you get arrested for disorderly conduct; they use that charge as a 'catch all' these days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
