Police in Colorado do a mass roundup looking for armed suspect

[db1775 4]

Anyone else find this police action in Aurora, Co. disturbing? I get that they were looking for an armed bank robber, and actually ended up catching the guy by rounding up everyone stopped at this traffic light but, just like the drones issue, while it may work but it makes me kind of uneasy.

 

If they don't do this an armed robber gets away. But what if they find an innocent guy who is carrying legally? He'll have to get booked too, right, until everything is sorted out?

 

http://abcnews.go.co...or-bank-robber/

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Blaring 4th amendment violation.....

[lunker 274]

Criminal actions to stop a criminal. I hope that town gets the shitt sued out of it. Threat of loss of money is the ONLY way to get towns to follow the law when they are otherwise inclined.

[greatgunstatenj 32]

I can't believe they all agreed to have their vehicles searched. I would have refused and demanded to be uncuffed so I could call a lawyer and get him started on my civil rights lawsuit.

[rdsmith3 19]

I can't believe they all agreed to have their vehicles searched. I would have refused and demanded to be uncuffed so I could call a lawyer and get him started on my civil rights lawsuit.

 

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Why do people give up their rights so easily?

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Why do people give up their rights so easily?

 

[Duppie 73]

Unfortunately I believe we will hear and see more of these blatant violations as our police forces become more militarized and able to attribute the shift in law enforcement policy to the war on terror and cuts in funding and hiring.It's just more expedient and efficient to use such tactics than to proceed with a lengthy and expensive traditional investigation.

It was a judgment call but one that would not have been made just a decade ago IMO for fear of the lawsuits as well as citizen backlash. No such fear exists today and only succeeds in perpetuating the us against them perception.

[Tom-NJ2AS 31]

What if they did something like this when your small child had been abducted, and were successful in finding them? Would you feel the same?

[PeteF 1,044]

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.

 

"We didn't have a description, didn't know race or gende

r 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.

 

A reliable tip that the robber is stopped at a light (for what,maybe two minutes)

BS!!!! A "reliable" tip that has no description of a person or vehicle?

 

Cha Ching! Lawsuits aplenty coming.

[Soju 153]

What if they did something like this when your small child had been abducted, and were successful in finding them? Would you feel the same?

 

We can what if all day. I have a what if.

 

What if police followed the law?

 

That is a much more relevant what if.

[woodentoe 14]

What if they did something like this when your small child had been abducted, and were successful in finding them? Would you feel the same?

 

I'm kind of shocked at this statement. Doesn't it serve no purpose but to call up emotions? Think of the children...and all that? It sounds like the sort of thing I hear some antis say about violating the 2nd amendment.

 

"What if it were your child who would get shot with a gun purchased FTF at a gun show? Would you feel the same?"

 

A violation of personal sovereignty is just that...a violation. There was no description, no lead, and no PC. How is it that I can be searched without warrant and handcuffed without arrest and that is a-ok because the cops are looking for a bank robber?

[Zed's_Dead 16]

The Supreme Court in many, many instances has already upheld warrantless searches as legal as long as there are exigent circumstances that require the search to be made. If you google "exigent circumstances exception" you can find all sorts of examples. There's one that seems like it fits this situation pretty closely. United States v. Kreimes, 649 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (upholding warrantless search based on hot pursuit and danger posited by possibility of armed fugitive remaining at large)).

[Soju 153]

The Supreme Court in many, many instances has already upheld warrantless searches as legal as long as there are exigent circumstances that require the search to be made. If you google "exigent circumstances exception" you can find all sorts of examples. There's one that seems like it fits this situation pretty closely. United States v. Kreimes, 649 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (upholding warrantless search based on hot pursuit and danger posited by possibility of armed fugitive remaining at large)).

 

You are not applying 'exigent circumstances' correctly. Searching a house you just chased a criminal into without a warrant is different than detaining dozens of people for hours because though you don't know who, you think there might be a criminal among them. If they fail to be able to articulate even reasonable suspicion then they don't even have the right to detain you temporarily nevertheless search your car sans a warrant. Their actions fail even the most basic of stipulations required. A more appropriate comparison would be you being handcuffed and detained while your apartment is searched because they had a 'tip' there was a criminal in your apartment building. Because they don't know what the criminal looks like, they are detaining and searching everybody in the building. You would be fine with that?

[BlueLineFish 615]

The reliable tip is key. The handcuffing everybody is a little much but to me officer safety is paramount. People didn't have to consent but they did so that's not an issue. Again depending on the tip is where exigent circumstances come into play. Also the tip will play into reasonable suspicion and if you have that any detention within a reasonable amount of time to facilitate an investigation is ok. Of the people were uncuffed and released after they were found not to be connected then so be it.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Uncuffed and released - but they were still unlawfully detained for (according to the article) 2 hours.

[Sticky Grips 4]

What would you expect? The police and the govt to actually follow the law?

[BlueLineFish 615]

I stand corrected. I would have let each vehicle leave the scene once there were found to have no involvement. You are then minimizing the detention time of non involved persons. I can see this maybe being a problem

[Krdshrk 3,877]

I stand corrected. I would have let each vehicle leave the scene once there were found to have no involvement. You are then minimizing the detention time of non involved persons. I can see this maybe being a problem

 

If I was stopped and let go without the illegal search - no issue, provided it didn't make me late for work or anything.

[Zed's_Dead 16]

You are not applying 'exigent circumstances' correctly. Searching a house you just chased a criminal into without a warrant is different than detaining dozens of people for hours because though you don't know who, you think there might be a criminal among them. If they fail to be able to articulate even reasonable suspicion then they don't even have the right to detain you temporarily nevertheless search your car sans a warrant. Their actions fail even the most basic of stipulations required. A more appropriate comparison would be you being handcuffed and detained while your apartment is searched because they had a 'tip' there was a criminal in your apartment building. Because they don't know what the criminal looks like, they are detaining and searching everybody in the building. You would be fine with that?

 

I, am not applying anything at all, Bones. Merely pointing out that for those who are so sure that their opinion is the rock solid correct one, that it may not be the case as there are two sides to every argument. If someone called the police and said "the bank robber is in his car at the stop light at 5th and Main" is that a reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless search of the cars containing males? I am a mere lawyer, not a judge, so I can't give you a definitive opinion. But you make an assumption about the search based on one news report. I doubt the police have released all the info they have regarding this to the media.

[db1775 4]

_{One of the things I find most interesting about this situation is that the reliable tip only told the police that the bank robber was in a car at the intersection, no other descriptive details were given. I'd love to know how the tipster knew it was the bank robber, and why they gave no other details about the person fo the vehicle. That sounds really weird to me.}

[greatgunstatenj 32]

I'm thinking about how long a typical red light lasts, how long it takes to dial a phone, get a point across to the emergency operator, operator relays the information, and then how long it takes someone to respond to the location in question. Perhaps the area was congested so traffic wasn't moving and the perp was at the light for a while? Otherwise it really doesn't add up for me.

[PeteF 1,044]

I'm thinking the Aurora cops have an inside man with the "group" that robbed the bank. The inside guy was able to ID the actual robbers but they didn't want to burn the inside guy. So they came up with the cockamamie story about the "reliable tip" and stop and search everyone to maintain the guys cover.

[KpdPipes 388]

A reliable tip that the robber is stopped at a light (for what,maybe two minutes)

BS!!!! A "reliable" tip that has no description of a person or vehicle?

 

Cha Ching! Lawsuits aplenty coming.

They must've had something since they managed to catch the guy

[Soju 153]

But you make an assumption about the search based on one news report. I doubt the police have released all the info they have regarding this to the media.

 

I doubt they have released all the info too. Usually on stories like this, the more info that comes out the worst it looks. At least now, we can speculate one way or the other.

 

But sense 'exigent circumstances' were brought up, can you give me a scenario where detaining dozens of people for an extended period of time is necessary?

 

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]

 

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.

 

Since this is dealing with catching a criminal, let's just stick with the applicable portion in bold.

 

Since as noted, they must act on the information they have. So let's say that the tip they got was as legitimate as possible, the criminal was 100% in that group of cars.

 

Let's also not even deal with the search of the vehicles, as the article said they were given consent (whether under duress or not, we will ignore this part).

 

Is there 'exigent circumstances' to remove and handcuff everybody? Are they still operating under the same circumstances up to 2 hours later, as stated in the article? Under what situation, after having detained someone (the 'other relevant prompt action' part), is it still necessary to keep them detained for an extended period of time? Where in the constitution is this even allowed?

 

I'd say you would have to be using a very loose definition of 'exigent circumstances'.

[ChrisJM981 924]

"High powered handguns". Glock 19: okay I'll give them that. The other gun appears to be a Walther P22 .22LR. Did they find the right guy because he had two loaded handguns? If I lived in Colorado I'd probably have the same two guns on my person. Were the people released as they were searched? Not enough info here.

[Zed's_Dead 16]

Bones you can't quantify something like this before it happens because the words have no definition beforehand. What's an "extended time period" in one situation might not be in another. Once it happens and we have the luxury of hindsight, it's easy to either say the police did the right or wrong thing depending on the situation. In general, I tend to err on the side of the police. If the tip the police got in this situation was reliable, then I think this situation satisfies what you have in bold above. I don't know what that is a quote from but it says right in there that "There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials".

[Soju 153]

So out of all the people detained, which one of them being detained prevented the escape of the suspect?

 

And extended period of time? Well the article said it was up to 2 hours. Would you not consider that an extended period? But to respond directly, in this case, anything greater than, I don't know, about 2 minutes I'd consider extended. "Oh, you aren't a bank robber. Have a nice day."

 

So now all it takes is "a reliable tip" to detain anybody for multiple hours...instead of say, following the law? Not to mention any 'tip' is either reliable, or it isn't, with NO way of knowing until it is checked out. So saying a 'reliable tip' is also easy...in hindsight.

[Zed's_Dead 16]

So out of all the people detained, which one of them being detained prevented the escape of the suspect?

 

And extended period of time? Well the article said it was up to 2 hours. Would you not consider that an extended period? But to respond directly, in this case, anything greater than, I don't know, about 2 minutes I'd consider extended. "Oh, you aren't a bank robber. Have a nice day."

 

So now all it takes is "a reliable tip" to detain anybody for multiple hours...instead of say, following the law? Not to mention any 'tip' is either reliable, or it isn't, with NO way of knowing until it is checked out. So saying a 'reliable tip' is also easy...in hindsight.

 

Bones you say "following the law" like every situation is the same. They're not. Why do you not see that? Is the two hours for everyone, or only the people who were released last? The article doesn't make it clear. It's obvious that you have a grudge against the police and whatever I, or anyone else, say, we aren't even going to be able to get you to see both sides of the argument, let alone change your mind.

 

I absolutely believe that in the right circumstances, a two hour detention is reasonable. In some cases it won't be reasonable. We just don't have enough information to make a judgment on this particular incident is all I am saying.

[Soju 153]

Bones you say "following the law" like every situation is the same. They're not. Why do you not see that?

 

Why don't I see that? Why do most laws even bothering outlining specific scenarios and exemptions if those specific scenarios and exemptions aren't applicable?I am not saying you wouldn't think they aren't. I am saying it someone violates what it says, why is it that if it is an average citizen, they get charged, yet if it is police, it is okay? Of course not every situation is the same. Yet more times then not, if the average Joe is on the wrong end of it, police and prosecutors say "tough luck, you broke the law, you suffer the coincidences". The same does NOT hold true for the same police and prosecutor. They get the "well, we feel they acted with good intentions, so it is okay that they may have broken the law."

 

Why do you not see that?

 

 

Is the two hours for everyone, or only the people who were released last? The article doesn't make it clear.

 

It is not clear, but even if it was only a couple of people that were detained that long, it doesn't change anything. And how come you didn't respond to my first question?

[vjf915 456]

But what if they find an innocent guy who is carrying legally?

 

I'm sorry, but this bothers me. Why worry when you're doing something LEGALLY. Do you worry when you're driving your car legally, shopping for groceries legally, or walking your dog legally? NO. So why on earth would you worry about carrying a gun legally? Make sure you know the law, make sure your actions follow the letter of the law, and you have no reason to be concerned about what you're doing.