Aurora PD

[Ronin13]

Yea, things are different now then they were. I was young and dumb at the time and didn't want to get busted with at my girlfriends house, mid afternoon when we were supposed to be in school. So after 2 hours, and with her parents on their way home I had to give in.

Think how differently our youth would have been... if I knew then what I know now... Well let's just say there were a few traffic stops that would have gone down differently when I was a kid.

[Uberjager]

I saw pictures of this going down. There were at least a dozen or so cops, with long guns and a few others with pistols drawn, surrounding the vehicle, and detaining the people. The "suspects" were cuffed and left sitting on a sidewalk not too far from the intersection.

[CO303]

The problem is that if one of the lawful citizens was legally carrying or had weapons in their car, they would have been arrested. They would have had their property seized and they would have to spend a lot of money to retrieve they're property. That would be the best case.

[hatidua]

From watching the video in the news link, it would appear as though Aurora PD takes the "might makes right" stance on things. I'll do my level best to act surprised...

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

http://shaunkaufmanlaw.com/2012/06/0...without-cause/

At least one lawyer gets it right.


Title says:"Chief Apologizes To Bystanders Detained During Suspect Search"

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/0...uspect-search/

Except thats not what he said:

"The law is clear that investigative detentions are lawful for a reasonable period of time,” Oates said. “Reasonableness is determined by the facts and circumstances at issue, and the facts and circumstances were the suspect was in one of 19 cars.”

Would 20 have been unreasonable? 190, 1900 reasonable? With no description. It will be interesting to see what happens to the evidence when it gets to court. If the suspect kept his mouth shut and he can suppress the evidence he's got a chance.

Actually wish I had been there. It would have been the best civics lesson my seven year old could get.

[cstone]

Title says:"Chief Apologizes To Bystanders Detained During Suspect Search"

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/0...uspect-search/

Except thats not what he said:

"The law is clear that investigative detentions are lawful for a reasonable period of time,” Oates said. “Reasonableness is determined by the facts and circumstances at issue, and the facts and circumstances were the suspect was in one of 19 cars.”

Here is the quote from the above story that I found interesting.

"Oats said the police department has received about five complaints regarding the methods used, but none of them came from any of the 40 people who were detained."

Apparently, Oates and the Aurora PD are not reading this board. There have been far more than five complaints here on this board.

Was anyone on this board there? Does anyone know what actually happened or is all of our knowledge about this incident coming straight from the always truthful and completely accurate news media?

Innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone, even public officials.

The way I see it, the people who have standing to complain were there. Everyone else is speculating and offering opinions.

Be safe.

[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.

[cstone]

I agree to a point. There are very well established and recognized exceptions to the requirement for a warrant.

Exigency is one of the most often utilized, however it should be used with the understanding that the officer's judgment regarding what constitutes exigency may not jive with a judges ideas on what constitutes exigency.

In many cases, it is better to make a constructive seizure when possible and secure the container, building, room, etc... until a warrant can be obtained.

As for the fleeing felon, all I can say is that you normally have to identify your fleeing felon before you may be involved in a "hot pursuit."

The circumstances as described in this incident sound more like a localized dragnet, which most, if not all courts have determined to be unconstitutional.

The most effective method for avoiding the need for obtaining a warrant or conducting dragnet searches is to simply obtain a willing, knowing, and voluntary consent. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing better than a well obtained consent search.

Be safe.

[theGinsue]

If they didn't have a description, how did they ID the guy in the end???

The second is when officers in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon chases that felon into a REP area.

As for the fleeing felon, all I can say is that you normally have to identify your fleeing felon before you may be involved in a "hot pursuit."

The circumstances as described in this incident sound more like a localized dragnet, which most, if not all courts have determined to be unconstitutional.

The most effective method for avoiding the need for obtaining a warrant or conducting dragnet searches is to simply obtain a willing, knowing, and voluntary consent. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing better than a well obtained consent search.

Be safe.

I've only made it through the first 75 posts of this thread and feel the need to address something.

CStone hit the nail on the head. LE did not have a description of the suspect and were not in what is officially recognized as hot pursuit. Because of these facts, the use of the exigency clause is invalid. While not absolute, it is very difficult to maintain officially recognized hot pursuit without maintaining direct eye contact/line-of-site with a known suspect. To exercise "exigent circumstances", you MUST combine "Hot pursuit" with "fleeing felon" (as in We were in hot pursuit [which can stand up in court] of a fleeing felon). This was not the case here. Individually, they do not justify most tactics.

On to another topic within this discussion...
This has already been mentioned a few times but I find this particularly alarming. While I'm sure (hope) there was more involved than was identified in the referenced news story, a particular statement in the story stands out like a red flag to me:

“Once officers got to his car, they found evidence that he was who they were looking for,” Fania said. “When they searched the car, they found two loaded firearms.”

With more and more individuals realizing their obligation to their own personal safety begins with themselves and are exercising their rights to carry firearms, what if more individuals detained in this instance had been carrying? Would this have been enough to have gotten them arrested and their vehicles and other personal items confiscated until LE could sort through the most likely suspect?

This entire situation disturbs me on multiple levels. And no, I would not grant authorization to search my vehicle (I've learned the hard way as well as being on the other side of this coin). Either be prepared to present uncontestable evidence of probable cause before a judge, or obtain a warrant (which also requires some degree of probable cause to satisy a judge).

We all know that simply exercising your Constitutional rights and refusing a search shouldn't be construed as a form of guilt, however, it is most often taken that way. As has been identified in some of the real life experiences of some of our members, there is a certain amount of leniency provided to the LE community to make it increasingly uncomfortable for you to refuse to cooperate. Anyone making the decision to exercise their rights needs to understand from the outset that to do this WILL come at the expense of your time and comfort. You can likely expect some degree of manhandling short of actual mistreatment. The longer you are detained or in custody increases the likelyhood that you will give them sufficient reason to charge you with a crime where they will likely receive a conviction. Techniques such as "kettling" are often used to escalate a situation beyond boiling point on behalf of the "suspect" and providing LE with justification to move you from "detainment" to "arrest". It's exceptionally easy to fall victim to these techniques and the officers have effectively used them on many suspects before they came across you. Once they decide you are to be arrested, it's equally easy to claim "resisting arrest" - which you really have little ability to prove your innocence against. Yes, I know the laws say "innocent until proven guilty", but when it's your word against 3+ duly sworn officers of the court, you haven't a chance.

Gentlemen, we are stuck in an untenable situation these days where we are damned if we do (damned if we acquiesce & forfeit our rights) and damned if we don't. We, as a society, have voted into office individuals who have put forth laws which make it practically impossible to maintain our rights. The obvious answer is to vote new people into office that still believe in what the Founding Fathers of this nation had in mind. Sadly, I never see this happening again. We, again, as a society, have happily and voluntarily handed over our essential freedoms in order to obtain some sort of promised security. Make peace with this reality now because this trend will only continue until we are no longer a free people.

ETA: I also feel the responsibility to make a few things here clear so as to not be misquoted:
(a) I have a profound respect for Law Enforcement and the officers who have to face difficult deciions and events every day on the job.
(b) I don't know and I am not making any claims that individuals here had their 4th Amendment rights violated via the searching of their vehicles. In fact, I honestly believe all individuals involved grantged authority to search.
(c) While I think the 2 hours is excessive, I understand and agree that once the decision to perform this dragnet was made, the decision to handcuff the affected individuals was the right this to do to protect officer and citizen safety. Unfortunately, had I been one of those people I would have been in tremendous pain after more than 10 minutes due to repetitive shoulder injuries.

ETA2:

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 know your pain brother.

ETA3: Wait a minute. So what I'm hearing is that the guy they apprehended at the scene of this busy intersection (the guy with a couple of guns in his car) was NOT the armed robber? So, this guy was arrested (er, "apprehended") simply for the fact that he had 2 firearms in full exercise of his Constitutional rights in his vehicle? Oh, this is grand. I suspect HE will have something more to say to the City of Aurora about this even if the adult occupants of the other 18 car do not.

[Ronin13]

there is a certain amount of leniency provided to the LE community to make it increasingly uncomfortable for you to refuse to cooperate.

I had to address this because this is, how do they say, hitting the nail on the head. Kev will probably agree with me here, as would any of our LEOs, that while society and precedence can influence LEO behavior- not to mention policy instituted by higher ranking administration- the line between non-cooperation and standing up for your rights has been blurred quite a bit over the years. I've seen it, experienced it, and heard about it. It's very sad, and in a case like this- police trying to locate a fleeing suspect- I fear that the doors open for abusive tactics to be employed when tensions are running high. I would hope that we as a society would wake the hell up and see these transgressions and aid in "pumping the brakes" so that cops don't get themselves in trouble.

Moreover, on the flip side, we do not want to "pussify" our LEOs by putting a bunch of barriers in the way so that they question their actions in a hostile situation. As the Army taught me, hesitation can kill you, but that correlates quite differently to civilian law enforcement. I guess my point is that it's become so commonplace that in a high stress situation, like the one in this case, many don't stop and think if their rights are being violated and simply comply with toeing the line of constitutional rights tactics. I'm not saying the PD blatantly violated rights, they were under a lot of stress and on edge because of the circumstances and maybe used a little too aggressive options in trying to locate the suspect. Hopefully in the future, if, as Ginsue put it best, they didn't have a clear sight or exact location of the suspect, they would recognize a lack of need for use of such tactics. Of course there probably isn't going to be much backlash so we can all chalk this one up to setting a new precedence.