POLICE NATION: CO Police Stop and Handcuff Every Adult in Search for Bank Robber

Quote from 124nic8 : Only by violating the rights of at least 18 other persons.

Your opinion in the absence of all facts....

Quote from 124nic8 : I'll ask you the same question as BB: if they knew a criminal was in a town could they go door to door and intimidate people into agreeing to a search of their house until they "track down" the criminal?

In theory, they could legally go door to door and request a search. They could not legally "intimidate" a resident into agreement, nor could they force a search without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

I am expecting that when all the facts are made known, exigent circumstances along with mobility will be a major issue in the incident being discussed in the OP.

Quote from 124nic8 : Well then, the cops are compromising everyones' safety by attempting this in the first place, cause the criminal might start shooting as soon as he sees the road block. Or as soon as he sees the first people being handcuffed. Such is the problem when trying to round up a mass of people who are not under reasonable suspicion. They can't cuff everyone at once nor by surprise.

I can't believe I am agreeing with you but I am. I have a big problem with the idea that me and my wife can be driving along minding our own business and breaking no laws and then at an intersection have police cuff both of us until they finish searching my car.

If it was just me and I was in no hurry I can see myself refusing to let them search my car just to see what they would do.

Quote from adams135 : I can't believe I am agreeing with you but I am. I have a big problem with the idea that me and my wife can be driving along minding ate own business and breaking no laws and then at an intersection have police cuff both of us until they finish searching my car. If it was just me and I was in no hurry I can see myself refusing to let them search my car just to see what they would do.

Fwiw, I would *never* voluntarily consent to any search of my person or property.

I'm in no hurry to further erode the protections of my Fourth Amend rights.

Quote from nobama : They should have been fully aware of that fact when they made the decision to take the action that they did, and that is one reason why I believe there is much more information and facts that we are not aware of that would have justified their action. At least I hope there is........ That's your personal bias talking, and I won't waste time arguing with you on that other than to say that if what you describe is found to be true in court, the search will be almost certainly ruled invalid and the case dismissed. It's not worth the risk - it's better to go by the book and follow the rules, and most (not all) LEO's do.

And that's *your* personal bias talking - or, to be more accurate, speculating...

Quote from smegalicious : Fwiw, I would *never* voluntarily consent to any search of my person or property. I'm in no hurry to further erode the protections of my Fourth Amend rights.

Not enough time to "sanitize" the car or clean the pockets out?

j/k

FWIW, there would have to be a significant legitimate justification for me to grant consent, and I have nothing to hide...

Quote from smegalicious : And that's *your* personal bias talking - or, to be more accurate, speculating...

Just the facts, ma'am....

Quote from nobama : Not enough time to "sanitize" the car or clean the pockets out? j/k

Nah, just not enough time to educate leos as to the meaning of the fourth amend.

Quote : FWIW, there would have to be a significant legitimate justification for me to grant consent, and I have nothing to hide...

How would you know the significant legimate justifcation?

IME, police aren't usually too forthcoming about explaining themselves or their so-called reasoning.

Quote : Just the facts, ma'am....

Exactly. And your hopeful speculation is far from a "fact."

Quote from smegalicious : How would you know the significant legimate justifcation? IME, police aren't usually too forthcoming about explaining themselves or their so-called reasoning.

Most of the time you wouldn't know unless they took the time to explain, which as you have accurately said is rare, so in the absence of any information obtained by my observation or knowledge of the specific circumstances of the particular incident that would lead me to believe their request is justified, my response would be: Sorry guys, No consent.

That applies only to those of us who have nothing to hide however. I would encourage anyone engaged in unlawful activity such as dope use, manufacturing, sales or other criminal activity to immediately grant consent. It helps speed up the process for everyone and helps clean the consciense...

Quote from nobama : Your opinion in the absence of all facts.... In theory, they could legally go door to door and request a search. They could not legally "intimidate" a resident into agreement, nor could they force a search without a warrant or exigent circumstances. I am expecting that when all the facts are made known, exigent circumstances along with mobility will be a major issue in the incident being discussed in the OP.

However, they could make it be known that they'll drag you downtown for "questioning" if you don't consent to a search. Just subtle intimidation......and maybe they don't even follow up on it.

Quote from 124nic8 : However, they could make it be known that they'll drag you downtown for "questioning" if you don't consent to a search. Just subtle intimidation......and maybe they don't even follow up on it.

I'm discussing procedure that is legal, and your scenario is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_search

Quote : the prosecution in any trial using the search results as evidence is required to prove that the consent was voluntary and not a result of coercion.

Quote from smegalicious : So the end justifies the means? What if the reliable tip had turned out to be wrong? Would you see an issue then?

So in a crowded theatre, a shot is fired. A woman is dead. They almost immediately close down the exit doors. About a 1000 people are inside. They recover the gun but do not know who the shooter is. A gun residue test however will reveal the shooter. They detain everyosne until they do the test on everyone.

Illegal?

Quote from 124nic8 : So how large does the area have to be, before the line is crossed?

That is a very good question. What's your answer?

Quote from nobama : I'm discussing procedure that is legal, and your scenario is not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_search

Surely you know there are subtle ways of intimidating that can be denied as a "misunderstanding."

Quote from TRNT : That is a very good question. What's your answer?

That police should not be allowed to detain anyone in handcuffs who is not under reasonable suspicion. And being in proximity to a criminal tracking device is not reasonable suspicion.

Seems like there are other ways to determine which car holds the perp, if only the police were smart enough to utilize them.....

Quote from TRNT : So in a crowded theatre, a shot is fired. A woman is dead. They almost immediately close down the exit doors. About a 1000 people are inside. They recover the gun but do not know who the shooter is. A gun residue test however will reveal the shooter. They detain everyosne until they do the test on everyone. Illegal?

Do they put everyone in handcuffs while they are being detained?