Aurora PD

[Cameron]

The Aurora police violated basic constitutionally-guaranteed rights, federal law, rights guaranteed by the Colorado Constitution, and state law.

[spqrzilla]

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.

[buckeye4rnr]

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

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/

[Sharpienads]

The TSA does it, why not Aurora PD?

[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 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?

[Not_A_Llama]

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.

[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.

[Waywardson174]

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.

[Fmedges]

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?

[rshives]

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.