Aurora PD

[Waywardson174]

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!

[00tec]

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...

[UncleDave]

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.

[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.

[Lex_Luthor]

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?"

[Byte Stryke]

[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?

[Waywardson174]

"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.

[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...

[Steps]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[SuperiorDG]

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.