Mass Detention in search for bank robber

[rgrimm01]

Here's the repsonse from Eugene Volokh, noted professor of law at UCLA and quite a voice for libertarians.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Police Searching for Bank Robber Stop All Cars at Intersection, Handcuff Drivers, Search Cars

Interesting read by Vlolkh. Question: Could it be argued that if one is armed, it is reasonable to believe that one is presently dangerous as well, even though the one is legally armed? Think of how we are conditioned by the warning signage all around us.

"Danger, high voltage" "Danger, propane storage here" "Danger, Calcium Chloride", etc...

It would seem that the mindset is that if something has the potential to affect in a negative or harmful way, it is reasonable to believe it presents a danger(presently dangerous). If that is the accepted mindset, one does not have to be armed to have the potential to affect in a negative or harmful way and presumed dangerous.

This seems to be the perspective of those that would make a MWAG call or favor cc over oc as to not upset the masses. It would also explain many of the negative interactions between LE and civilians. In this case, all at that intersection had the potential to be dangerous and therefore were presumed dangerous until proven otherwise.

Someone please tell me this is not the case and that we are not hopelessly bereft of our rights and personal freedoms...

 

[KG1]

I am a LEO.

A LEO that has no trouble telling it like it is and willing to call out bad policies or actions concerning members of his former profession.

I can respect that.

 

[Lex Concord]

People do realize that he's retired LEO, right?

Yes, but apparently not everyone realizes that I am one who refuses to use purple

Oh crap...post 1775...I guess I have to stop now. It's been real.

 

[buckwacker]

I am a LEO.

Kudos to you sir. I get tired of all the excuses and defensive attitudes from most LEO when these stories are discussed. We need many, many, many more like you.

 

[rambone]

If even one green piece of paper was recovered, it was worth it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I find this issue troubling, but I'm not sure exactly why.
Let's police are notified by a "reliable source" that a bank robbery is in progress, and the criminal's sex, race or any other descriptors are unknown. Upon police arrival, 19 persons exit the doors. Police cannot confirm the crime unless they enter the bank. Are police justified in detaining those persons?

 

[Kutnupe14]

A mother states that that her daughter was kidnapped. She heard her screams, and a vehicle's tires screeching down the road. Mother exits her home sees the vehicle's tail lights (that all she saw) and that it has stopped at a stop light with several other cars. As other cars get in line, she loses sight of the vehicle's tail lights. An officer happens to be at the intersection. Is he justified in detaining the entire group of cars?

 

[Rookie]

No and no.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No and no.

Fair enough.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I find this issue troubling, but I'm not sure exactly why.
Let's police are notified by a "reliable source" that a bank robbery is in progress, and the criminal's sex, race or any other descriptors are unknown. Upon police arrival, 19 persons exit the doors. Police cannot confirm the crime unless they enter the bank. Are police justified in detaining those persons?

A mother states that that her daughter was kidnapped. She heard her screams, and a vehicle's tires screeching down the road. Mother exits her home sees the vehicle's tail lights (that all she saw) and that it has stopped at a stop light with several other cars. As other cars get in line, she loses sight of the vehicle's tail lights. An officer happens to be at the intersection. Is he justified in detaining the entire group of cars?

No and no.

Fair enough.

I don't even have that much of a problem with breif detention to stop a REAL criminal like a kidnapper but a bank thief stealing insured government money??? That IS criminal.

The problem here started with a mass detention, unfortunately through case law and federal statutes it was perfectly legal for the LEOs to detain these people and even to ask/order them out of their vehicles.

The violations started with handcuffing these people. The sheep evidently consented to the searches but we do not really know that for sure.

We also do not know if they captured the right guy! 1 out of 19 vehicles seems like a likely percentage to discover a legally armed man, last I checked it was legal to carry loaded handguns in CO. Doubt we will hear how this really turns out.

 

[KG1]

No and no.

Fair enough.

You mean you guys aren't even gonna call each other names or anything? That was to easy. This is a forum for gosh sakes. You can't have a simple debate and let it go like that!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

You mean you guys aren't even gonna call each other names or anything? That was to easy. This is a forum for gosh sakes. You can't have a simple debate and let it go like that!

Pot stirrer...

 

[hornadylnl]

How many of those pointing guns at the motorists were truckers?

 

[HICKMAN]

The bank's money is more important than your rights.

wonder why? It's insured, isn't it?

 

[ghuns]

A mother states that that her daughter was kidnapped. She heard her screams, and a vehicle's tires screeching down the road. Mother exits her home sees the vehicle's tail lights (that all she saw) and that it has stopped at a stop light with several other cars. As other cars get in line, she loses sight of the vehicle's tail lights. An officer happens to be at the intersection. Is he justified in detaining the entire group of cars?

OK I'll play.

If it's my daughter, normally, hell yea, but she is a teenage girl so some days I'd slam the trunk closed myself. Yours, well I don't know her so I really can't say.

So we are weighing our rights not to be detained and searched, a very temporary problem, versus a child's right NOT to be kidnapped, raped, and murdered, a potentially very permanent problem? All based on a crime that might or might not have occurred? Not a fun game to play.

I know, I know, those who give up liberty for security bla bla bla, it's a slippery slope, bla bla, but a kidnapped child is not the same as a property crime.

If you say no, and you're the cop who knew my kidnapped child was in one of those 19 cars sitting at that stoplight, and you let them all drive by, I'm comin lookin for you and I'm gonna go all Liam Nesson on ya.

The real question is does the "greater good" ever trump our individual rights? And who gets to define that greater good?

The officers who decided to detain those 19 people in search of the bank robbers made a decision, good for them, it's a rare ability in the world today. We can debate if it was the correct decision, most will say no. The great thing is that those 19 people have recourse if they believe that the decision was not a reasonable one. And that is what separates us from apes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't even have that much of a problem with breif detention to stop a REAL criminal like a kidnapper but a bank thief stealing insured government money??? That IS criminal.

The problem here started with a mass detention, unfortunately through case law and federal statutes it was perfectly legal for the LEOs to detain these people and even to ask/order them out of their vehicles.

The violations started with handcuffing these people. The sheep evidently consented to the searches but we do not really know that for sure.

We also do not know if they captured the right guy! 1 out of 19 vehicles seems like a likely percentage to discover a legally armed man, last I checked it was legal to carry loaded handguns in CO. Doubt we will hear how this really turns out.

That was what rubbed me wrong also....

 

[rambone]

Kutnupe, to answer your scenarios, I don't think many of us would have a problem with asking for voluntary compliance, or by them using detective skills to obtain Probable Cause, and then proceeding with legitimate searches and detentions.

Searches and detentions before meeting that minimum standard are simply unacceptable.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Kutnupe, to answer your scenarios, I don't think many of us would have a problem with asking for voluntary compliance, or by them using detective skills to obtain Probable Cause, and then proceeding with legitimate searches and detentions.

Searches and detentions before meeting that minimum standard are simply unacceptable.

I agree. Do not point your guns at my chest and maybe I will help you out if I can. Guns pointed at me means doors locked, me silent and asking for a lawyer

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

So they believe they have an armed robber cornered.

They assume he is armed and dangerous and is in close proximity to me.

They want me to stand there in handcuffs.

I am completely unable to defend myself.

I don't think so, Tim!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So they believe they have an armed robber cornered.

They assume he is armed and dangerous and is in close proximity to me.

They want me to stand there in handcuffs.

I am completely unable to defend myself.

I don't think so, Tim!

HA! You think they actually told anyone what was going on before they slapped cuffs on them???