Aurora PD

[TFOGGER]

Yeah, Oates came off as an arrogant prick on TV last night, and his statements probably shifted the decimal point on any settlement at least 2 places to the right. Trampling all over the Bill of Rights is going to cost the Aurora taxpayers a bundle. I guess they'll just have to step up traffic enforcement to cover it.

[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.

[wyome]

So the cops should have just let everyone go on about their business?

[Drucker]

I guess the 4th Amendment isn't a priority with them, guess the 2nd will not be also?

[cstone]

I guess the 4th Amendment isn't a priority with them, guess the 2nd will not be also?

If everyone searched gave consent, then the 4th Amendment was not violated. Do you know something we don't?

I only know what the news media has provided. According to the Aurora PD, none of the 40 people detained have filed complaints. They certainly are well within their rights to file complaints, and if they feel their rights were violated, they should do so.

[stevelkinevil]

I read through most but not all the posts so I am not sure if this has been covered. Besides the obvious gross violation of these peoples rights, has anyone mentioned the fact that if that suspect came out guns a blazin while they were unlawfully detaining innocent people and children that they very likely put all these folks in grave danger? This story is appalling from top to bottom and yet again confirms my decision to leave the profession all together.

[rockhound]

Interesting how you can always tell who fell asleep in civics... Some of our board members have a terrifying concept of what constitutes "probable cause".

sorry but the rules are different when chasing known felon. you cant shoot just anyone running away from a cop either, but a fleeing felon different story.

and probable cause give them more than the opportunity to just request a search warrant, it gives them the right to enter you residence or place of business or anything else.

if they hear screams for help they can enter the residence on probable cause, if a fleeling felon (in this case a bank robber) is reported to have gone into a building they will have probable cause to follow. they do not request search warrants when chasing a fleeing felon.

search warrants are used when they are trying to ascertain whether there is a crime being committed not when chasing a known bank robber, if you think the cops need a search warrant to go into your home after a known fleeing felon you are just dumb

sorry you cannot armchair quarterback this into a violation of someones rights.

it looks to me like they police handled themselves professionally and secured the safety of the public and the officers involved.

[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.

[stevelkinevil]

Rockhound is correct, HOWEVER, you must have probable cause! You cannot simply randomly stop and search every vehicle in an area. If a subjects vehicle or appearance matches a description you now have it, they had nothing of the sort, a geographical area does not probable cause make.

[rockhound]

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