Aurora PD

The dramatic formatting of my post was for "not a llama"s benefit he is so sure that those who do not agree are somehow misinformed, i did not want him to miss the true definition and reason he was incorrect. was trying to save him some time reading, but did not want him to miss the point. [Beer]

My real point is that the original OP and many others right off the bat assume that the 4th amendment is set in stone and that everyone's rights were violated.

Dial back the hatred and distrust of the police a bit. They actually get it right more often than not. The OP and many quick to judgement responders did not even consider the exigency that trumps the 4th amendment many times and just start blathering about how they would refuse search and they would get lawyers.

As i said on page one, in this case I believe the cops gave more courtesy than they needed to by asking permission.


I guess they should have allowed him to leave the intersection and then pursued him in a high speed chase that endangered the public.

No matter what the police do these days and how safely they bring the BG into custody they get crap for it.

I don't believe they are always right, but they are not always wrong either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

The post by the lawyer seemed to me to be a pandering ad by an ambulance chaser to see if he could drum up some business.
[Beer]

---

^^^^^^this

If the PD used those stops /detainments to look for other stuff in the cars, or used their time to run a warrant check on everyone , then i would say a case for violation of civil rights has been made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

No matter what the police do these days and how safely they bring the BG into custody they get crap for it.

---

With much authority comes great responsibility. This is why I believe that the job isn't for everyone and isn't as easy as it looks.

There will always be those who believe they can do it better. A few of them may be right.

People (including cops) are not perfect. To expect otherwise would invite disappointment.

Most people know nothing about rocket science, but when the space shuttle blows up, everyone knows that was a mistake. If cops make a thousand decisions in a shift, some of them are bound to be wrong. We just try to make sure that more often than not we are right and when we are wrong, we try not to be wrong on the life and death stuff. [Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyome

If the PD used those stops /detainments to look for other stuff in the cars, or used their time to run a warrant check on everyone , then i would say a case for violation of civil rights has been made.

---

A case isn't made until a verdict is rendered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wyome

If the PD used those stops /detainments to look for other stuff in the cars, or used their time to run a warrant check on everyone , then i would say a case for violation of civil rights has been made.

---

i like your point [Beer]

http://i.imgur.com/UkWg6.jpg

Totally unacceptable. The chief says it was the safest way to deal with an armed robber.

And what if the dude had gotten out guns blazing? Dozens of innocent bystanders around, handcuffed, sitting on the sidewalk. It could have been a bloodbath.

If (big IF) some of the news reports can be believed, the PD MAY have been a bit heavy handed in dealing with some of the potential suspects. I guess we'll see how this plays out.

To rockhoud's points for the most part I whole heartedly agree EXCEPT, and it's a big one. They detained people in what in CO law equates to 19 places (their cars) CO law extends the same rights to your car as your home. So without consent that'd be 19 separate cases of "reasonable doubt". It's the equivalent of entering 19 homes in a neighborhood because they saw a felon flee to that neighborhood. They DID NOT have a specific vehicle description and therefore did not have reasonable doubt for any of the vehicles. The fact that they gained consent from them all renders it all a non issue. They received consent and therefore searched legally anyone's vehicle that gave consent. If they didn't receive consent from one or more of them, then that person has some room to bitch. .

I'm just saying I wouldn't have given it and they couldn't legally search it without getting a warrant because they had no specific description of a vehicle in which generates the reasonable doubt.

Also, If I was the kid in the green shirt above that has the shotgun and handgun pointed at him, I'd be calling a lawyer immediately when the smoke cleared. They without a doubt need more than someone in this group of 19 cars and 40 or so people committed this crime and we're detaining you all at gunpoint and in cuffs until we figure out who it was.

Consent obtained at gunpoint is not valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Consent obtained at gunpoint is not valid.

---

yeah...definitely.

I'm not sure if the picture Ridge posted is one of the "others" or if it is the actual robbery suspect, but if it is one of the "others", I think a lawsuit with "forced consent for fear of life" would be a pretty good title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

yeah...definitely.

I'm not sure if the picture Ridge posted is one of the "others" or if it is the actual robbery suspect, but if it is one of the "others", I think a lawsuit with "forced consent for fear of life" would be a pretty good title.

---

Doesn't look like a 45 year old man to me...

http://i.imgur.com/UkWg6.jpg

To Serve and Protect?

Soooo. This guy is so dangerous you have two guns on him, but if he is a BG and started shooting, what's in the background? You cuff and stuff a street load of people, but you don't control the background? Never mind that the photographer is in your field of fire. I can almost see the crimp on the shotgun shell in the chamber.

http://www.belch.com/blog/wp-content...2/05/elian.jpg

No problem detaining this illegal Elian.

http://eater.com/uploads/raw-milk-police-raid-260.jpg

Drink your milk, er. DON'T DRINK THE MILK!!!


Government. Solving our problems by pointing guns at one unarmed citizen at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

I respectfully disagree.

Probable cause (PC) will get you a warrant, if that PC is specific to the thing and place you believe contains evidence of a crime. Police are obliged to take that probable cause to a judge who then decides whether or not to issue a warrant to search or arrest. This can and often is done over the telephone, and can happen in less than two hours.

There are very well spelled out exceptions to obtaining a warrant, but the risk in using one of these exceptions is that after the fact (many months later) in an evidentiary hearing, a judge may disagree with your decision on not obtaining a warrant and throw out all of the really good evidence that you really need to convict a real criminal.

As a police officer, why would I risk doing all that good police work to not get a conviction? My motto (and many other officers share this philosophy) Get consent, or get a warrant. It saves a lot of wasted effort and makes your case much easier in the long run.

Be safe.

---

Amen and Amen. Quick Story from last fall: An 18YO friend, who knows the Constitution, was stopped, along with a line of vehicles. He watched the driver of the vehicle in front of him get out and open the trunk for the cop to search. As the cop approached his car he got out and locked his car. The cop said it was a "routine search procedure" my friend said unless you can show me a search warrant with my name on it you cannot search my car. The cop attempted to open the door but it was locked; he looked in the back seat and saw a gun case and said, 'what is that'? My friend said he was going shooting and the cop was making him late for his appointment. By this time others behind him had gotten out and were listening to the conversation. My friend finally said he had been detained long enough and if a search warrant wasn't produced he was leaving. He got in his car and drove away. and the funny part is 2 or 3 of the guys who got out to listen got in their cars and drove away. Moral of the story: Teach your kids the Constitution!

If you don't disciple our children, what you believe will be lost in one generation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barney fife

Amen and Amen. Quick Story from last fall: An 18YO friend, who knows the Constitution, was stopped, along with a line of vehicles. He watched the driver of the vehicle in front of him get out and open the trunk for the cop to search. As the cop approached his car he got out and locked his car. The cop said it was a "routine search procedure" my friend said unless you can show me a search warrant with my name on it you cannot search my car. The cop attempted to open the door but it was locked; he looked in the back seat and saw a gun case and said, 'what is that'? My friend said he was going shooting and the cop was making him late for his appointment. By this time others behind him had gotten out and were listening to the conversation. My friend finally said he had been detained long enough and if a search warrant wasn't produced he was leaving. He got in his car and drove away. and the funny part is 2 or 3 of the guys who got out to listen got in their cars and drove away. Moral of the story: Teach your kids the Constitution!

If you don't disciple our children, what you believe will be lost in one generation!

---

That's a tazin'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Consent obtained at gunpoint is not valid.

---

Amen!

Given they apparently "found two guns" and the suspect finally, I wonder what the consequences would've been if they'd come across one of our CO AR15er's daily vehicles, much less YOU LEGALLY carrying 2 guns?

Needs to be several terminations w/out benefits vs. lawsuits in my opinion... These type of civil lawsuits are just pass-through taxes to the citizens.

What a charlie-foxtrot on multiple levels. [Rant1]

This whole thread makes me laugh.... Keep going.... :)

10 pages and its not closed yet. [Wow2]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperiorDG

10 pages and its not closed yet. [Wow2]

---

It is interesting how long you can have a civil discussion when people refrain from calling others names. [Beer]

on the good side they got the felon
on the bad side they will now think this tactic acceptable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

i would say the narrowing it down the 19 cars at a particular intersection would satisfy any judge,

---

That's not the issue. The PD was not "following" a felon. They said that they had an anonymous tip that the suspects were at the intersection. That's not probable cause to support the search of the vehicles no matter how many or how few. In fact, the number of cars being 19 makes it clear that they had no probable cause for the stop of any one car.

A lot of people in the thread seem to think that the issue was whether or not the PD had a search warrant. Nonsense. The police do not need to obtain a search warrant to search a car. There is Supreme Court case law on this. Because of the nature of a car, there is no need to get a judge to sign a warrant. However, they do need probable cause to search without consent. Probable cause means some particular, objective reason to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime or the criminal suspect. Without a description of a car, a description of a suspect, or even the knowledge of the genders of the suspects, no probable cause exists.

"Exigent circumstances" is not involved here. If the PD were actually in pursuit of the suspects, then they can go anywhere in following them. They were not in pursuit.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/06...d-bank-robber/

Quote:

---

Police in Aurora, Colorado stopped every car and handcuffed every adult at an intersection in order to find a bank robbery suspect. Police Chief Daniel Oates has said, “The law is clear that investigative detentions are lawful for a reasonable period of time.” Judge Napolitano disagrees, saying, “You can only be stopped if the police can articulate, can state, some suspicion about you and that can only be for a brief period of time.”
In this specific incident, the judge says these were not stops by police but were arrests.
He argued, “It wasn’t justified under the federal Constitution, under the federal law, under the Colorado Constitution, or under Colorado law.”
Napolitano concluded, “We fought wars against governments who arrested groups of people until they got their person. We don’t do that in America.”

---

http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/1676940509001/

The TSA does it, why not Aurora PD?

My big question is- and forgive me, I skipped a lot- how long does it take Aurora PD to determine one is not the suspect in question? I would think that if I was stopped, handcuffed, and asked if I give consent to a search (now I wouldn't give consent without a very good reason, but for argument's sake...) and I do, they search, why would I have to sit handcuffed for 2 fawking hours!? I would be asking the officers "Okay, you've determined I'm not the guy you're looking for, can I please get the hell out of here and back to my busy life?" I have a shoulder injury and being handcuffed (or having my arms in that position) for a period longer than 10min causes me agonizing pain- reason #146 why I don't break the law. I think that would be one of those other circumstances where I would be calling a lawyer stating that I was detained longer than necessary and my health could have been put at risk. Or am I just overreacting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

just to clarify my position: the fleeing felon will excuse the need for a warrant, NOT A LLAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP IN CIVICS CLASS, also just have a screen name doesn't mean you are correct.

jump up and down all you want the cops handled this appropriately

Miller: Jenna, the courts often discuss exigencies that can excuse the need for obtaining a search warrant. What does the court mean by exigency?
Solari: An exigency is something that requires immediate attention; for instances, preventing the destruction of evidence, or preventing the escape of a fleeing felon, or preventing harm to somebody. If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant. The exigency actually excuses the warrant requirement for that officers’ initial entry.
Miller: I believe you mentioned three exigencies or three exigent circumstances that might excuse the need for a warrant.
Solari: Right. There are three re-occurring types of exigencies which allow police officers to make warrantless entries into REP areas. One occurs when an officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm.


as far as civics and most of my other courses i got an A, and civics probably did not cover this but a first year criminal law class would.

[Beer]

---

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...gif?1318992465

We have reason to believe that (insert name of someone off America's Most Wanted here) is loose in Colorado. We will be by shortly to detain you indefinitely until that individual is located. We will allow you to closely examine the business end of a loaded Glock 19 and Remington 870 while we 'ask' consent to search your homes, including the naughties in you nightstand. Please remain calm. We are the government, we're here to help.

Actually, Criminal law only explains what the crimes are. Criminal Procedure explains that the Aurora PD will likely lose their felon to suppressed evidence associated with his arrest, and the people of Aurora will be paying out millions in settlement to every one of those persons arrested. This went way beyond constitutional search and arrest law.

Also, the story indicates there was an anonymous tip. This IS NOT hot pursuit. Hot pursuit would require that the cops continually chase this guy. Exigency is a screaming victim, actually seeing a suspect enter a home, or seeing a gun held in a threatening manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

That's not the issue. The PD was not "following" a felon. They said that they had an anonymous tip that the suspects were at the intersection. That's not probable cause to support the search of the vehicles no matter how many or how few. In fact, the number of cars being 19 makes it clear that they had no probable cause for the stop of any one car.

A lot of people in the thread seem to think that the issue was whether or not the PD had a search warrant. Nonsense. The police do not need to obtain a search warrant to search a car. There is Supreme Court case law on this. Because of the nature of a car, there is no need to get a judge to sign a warrant. However, they do need probable cause to search without consent. Probable cause means some particular, objective reason to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime or the criminal suspect. Without a description of a car, a description of a suspect, or even the knowledge of the genders of the suspects, no probable cause exists.

"Exigent circumstances" is not involved here. If the PD were actually in pursuit of the suspects, then they can go anywhere in following them. They were not in pursuit.

---

Since in Colorado your car is an extension of your home, does that change how cars in Colorado looked upon regarding the law? Searching your car is the same as searching your house in this state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SuperiorDG

The only reason you would not let them search is if you have something to hide.

---

completely disagree. The only reason you would not let them search is if they have no reason too. This will only lead to neighbors ratting out neighbors, whether they have reason to or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fmedges

Since in Colorado your car is an extension of your home, does that change how cars in Colorado looked upon regarding the law? Searching your car is the same as searching your house in this state?

---

the exigent statute states:

If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies (fleeing felon) are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant

my position is that the limited scope of the cars at that intersection meet the "REP area" requirement and will thus be allowed to be searched.

the knee jerk reaction to the police tactics is just that, a knee jerk reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

the exigent statute states:

If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies (fleeing felon) are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant

---

The problem is the officers did not comparably enter 1 house they saw a felon flee into, they entered into the 19 homes of an entire neighborhood because some unnamed person said they saw the guy running down the block. That cannot be reasonable in a free society.

BTW Rockhound, Your next post is #600!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

the exigent statute states:

If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies (fleeing felon) are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant

my position is that the limited scope of the cars at that intersection meet the "REP area" requirement and will thus be allowed to be searched.

the knee jerk reaction to the police tactics is just that, a knee jerk reaction.

---

So say, for example, I was commuting through that intersection. What exactly makes the police believe that the suspect entered MY vehicle?

This is not about a single car. They (hopefully) didn't think the suspect entered 19 cars...

Not to be offensive here Rockhound, but your adamantly defending the Gestapo style tactics of Aurora PD no matter how well intentioned do not jive with the Jefferson quote in your sig line. The fact remains that there was no clearly defined evidence (and anonymous tip do not qualify as evidence) to detain these people for an extended period of time. You must charge them or release them. What happened to Blackstone's formulation (which the constitution was heavily influanced by his writings), "better ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer"? Ben Franklin ecoed Blackstone's words. This sounds more like Bismark (who's writings heavily influenced Nazi Germany) "It is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." That attitude is troubling for many reasons. That is why it is better to rely on one's self as much as possible rather than the "protection" of a benevolent ruling class. The rights of law enforcement to persue a criminal end at my personal rights. Once those are breached it is a very slippery slope.

"We have reason to believe the person is in a 1 mile radius of Iliff and Chambers, so we're going to detain everyone in that radius at gunpoint until they can be cleared or the suspect is found"

GPS tracker or not, substitute "200 yard" for 1 mile, and the above statement is still ridiculous. Hot pursuit would involve 1 or more suspects that could be visually identified, most likely in 1 vehicle, not 19. Drawing down on a soccer mom in a car with her kids is not advancing the investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

My big question is- and forgive me, I skipped a lot- how long does it take Aurora PD to determine one is not the suspect in question? I would think that if I was stopped, handcuffed, and asked if I give consent to a search (now I wouldn't give consent without a very good reason, but for argument's sake...) and I do, they search, why would I have to sit handcuffed for 2 fawking hours!? I would be asking the officers "Okay, you've determined I'm not the guy you're looking for, can I please get the hell out of here and back to my busy life?"

---

I also agree with this. Say I DO give consent to a search. Why would it take 2 hours of time while I'm sitting on the curb in the sun for them to clear me.

I'm also with the rest of those that say "what would have happened if one of us was in that intersection?"

http://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress.c...uns3.jpg?w=627
[IMG]http://media.graytvinc.com/images/300*168/6-3aurora.jpg[/IMG]

I feel like a Jew on a boat leaving Germany 29th January, 1933.

Georgia is pointing and going "OMG COLORADO IS LIKE CALIFORNIA NOW!"



are we now so enslaved that we no longer act like free men?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

"We have reason to believe the person is in a 1 mile radius of Iliff and Chambers, so we're going to detain everyone in that radius at gunpoint until they can be cleared or the suspect is found"

GPS tracker or not, substitute "200 yard" for 1 mile, and the above statement is still ridiculous. Hot pursuit would involve 1 or more suspects that could be visually identified, most likely in 1 vehicle, not 19. Drawing down on a soccer mom in a car with her kids is not advancing the investigation.

---

Additionally, WHERE IS THE EXIGENCY. If you can follow the guy to the intersection, you can follow him to his home, hideout, lair, etc. No reason to guarantee you violate the rights of 18 innocent people when you can follow one guilty guy as long as you like.

I haven't seen this mentioned, but weren't they just looking for a bank robber? Did the felon actually kill someone? Why all this effort and 'force' for just a bankrobber? Put a dye pack in and be done, or let him go and insurance will cover it... Sheesh, seems a bit overkill for just someone who stole some loot! Or did I miss something?

Either way, the ends don't justify the means...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

just to clarify my position: the fleeing felon will excuse the need for a warrant, NOT A LLAMA WAS OBVIOUSLY ASLEEP IN CIVICS CLASS, also just have a screen name doesn't mean you are correct.

jump up and down all you want the cops handled this appropriately

Miller: Jenna, the courts often discuss exigencies that can excuse the need for obtaining a search warrant. What does the court mean by exigency?
Solari: An exigency is something that requires immediate attention; for instances, preventing the destruction of evidence, or preventing the escape of a fleeing felon, or preventing harm to somebody. If an officer has facts to reasonably believe that one or more of those exigencies are occurring, then the officer can enter a REP area, like a house, without a warrant. The exigency actually excuses the warrant requirement for that officers’ initial entry.
Miller: I believe you mentioned three exigencies or three exigent circumstances that might excuse the need for a warrant.
Solari: Right. There are three re-occurring types of exigencies which allow police officers to make warrantless entries into REP areas. One occurs when an officer has probable cause to believe that the time it would take to go get a warrant would result in the destruction of the evidence. The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area. The third is when the officer needs to enter a home to save somebody from harm.


as far as civics and most of my other courses i got an A, and civics probably did not cover this but a first year criminal law class would.

[Beer]

---

How is forcing 18 other vehicles, within firing range of an armed bank robber, "Preventing harm to someone"? They directly put every innocent person there in what could have escalated into a very bad situation that got innocent people killed.

My biggest gripe is exactly that. You want to stop me in my vehicle, remove me from my vehicle at gun point, then ask for consent to search my car, all while an armed bank robber is within 20ish yards from me contemplating what to do in order to get away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

Great point. Win many debates that way? Is Nah-ninny-Nah-nah, liar-liar-pants-on-fire your back up arguement?

Two options here. Either they did a time-distance calculation from a third grade text book or they had a GPS locator to guide them.

The first is pretty flimsy excuse to point guns at innocent people. In the video I saw a cop had his finger on the trigger of his shotgun. Uncool. In the second, why exactly did they pull the trigger then? A couple of minutes and you can get to the exact car by process of elimination.

---

If they did have a GPS tracking device everyone there has an even better case against the PD. So you can track an armed bank robber wherever he goes and you chose to stop him at a busy intersection, along with 18 other cars, and search them all while putting everyone in danger?

There was no way they could stop every car and have an Officer present at each vehicle to ensure the safety of the innocent people caught up in this.

As I stated above, they put everyone in danger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockhound

The dramatic formatting of my post was for "not a llama"s benefit he is so sure that those who do not agree are somehow misinformed, i did not want him to miss the true definition and reason he was incorrect. was trying to save him some time reading, but did not want him to miss the point. [Beer]

My real point is that the original OP and many others right off the bat assume that the 4th amendment is set in stone and that everyone's rights were violated.

Dial back the hatred and distrust of the police a bit. They actually get it right more often than not. The OP and many quick to judgement responders did not even consider the exigency that trumps the 4th amendment many times and just start blathering about how they would refuse search and they would get lawyers.

As i said on page one, in this case I believe the cops gave more courtesy than they needed to by asking permission.


I guess they should have allowed him to leave the intersection and then pursued him in a high speed chase that endangered the public.

No matter what the police do these days and how safely they bring the BG into custody they get crap for it.

I don't believe they are always right, but they are not always wrong either.

---

I agree, they do get it right more often than not. And this is a perfect example of a time they got it wrong.

Endangered the public in a high speed chase? What car would they be chasing? They had no vehicle or physical description of the robber. Invalid point here. Besides, as I stated above, they PUT people in danger when they detained everyone at the intersection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 00tec

We have reason to believe that (insert name of someone off America's Most Wanted here) is loose in Colorado. We will be by shortly to detain you indefinitely until that individual is located. We will allow you to closely examine the business end of a loaded Glock 19 and Remington 870 while we 'ask' consent to search your homes, including the naughties in you nightstand. Please remain calm. We are the government, we're here to help.

---

And we will ask for consent while we have you at gun point, or shortly thereafter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sellersm

I haven't seen this mentioned, but weren't they just looking for a bank robber? Did the felon actually kill someone? Why all this effort and 'force' for just a bankrobber? Put a dye pack in and be done, or let him go and insurance will cover it... Sheesh, seems a bit overkill for just someone who stole some loot! Or did I miss something?

Either way, the ends don't justify the means...

---

Armed robbery = danger to society. Reason to chase, but that's about it.