Judge Weighs in on Aurora

Status
Not open for further replies.
judge never made it past a mid level jersey state court his legend notwithstanding


and his legal "opinions" since leaving the bench are sometimes amusing in a car crash kinda way
 
Last edited:
cassandrasdaddy said:
judge never made it past a mid level jersey state court his legend notwithstanding


and his legal "opinions" since leaving the bench are sometimes amusing in a car crash kinda way
Click to expand...


I love that guy. Him and I see things alike and he always seems to stand up for citizens rights.

What's not to like?
 
Any judge or former judge doing that sort of commentary is "telling tales out of school." His is an interesting perspective, but of course of no real legal force. And of course, what he's saying might very well be what a lot of us, here on this board, would want to hear.

And on the other hand, much of Mr. Justice Breyer's post decision commentary on Heller and McDonald was of no more significance. It was however what the anti-gun advocates wanted to hear.
 
Regardless of how you may personally feel about the judge, you can't deny his basic premise that the stops by the police were blatently unconstitutional. Where's the probable cause? I think he's right in that this will cost the city of Aurora a ton of money.

Suppose a gun were stolen at a gun show. Could the police arrest every person attending the show until they figured out who had the gun in their possession? The judge was entirely right that the SS perfected the practice of "arrest 'em all and figure it out later." I sure hope we aren't going to allow anything like that here.:uhoh:
 
did the police in this case arrest those folks in the intersection?


nice subtle godwin and i agree if that was to happen it would be wrong
 
another article
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/03/bystanders-get-caught-up-in-hunt-for-bank-robber/

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/02/aurora-police-detain-person-of-interest-in-bank-robbery/

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/06/...to-innocent-bystanders-during-suspect-search/
and from the last article

bit of irony

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.


i can elaborate on the judge but first i wanna make sure i do it in a thr manner so i need to check first
 
cassandrasdaddy said:
did the police in this case arrest those folks in the intersection?


nice subtle godwin and i agree if that was to happen it would be wrong
Click to expand...
Handcuffed is absolutely an arrest. 100%. According to Colorado Revised Statute 16-1-104, a full-blown custodial arrest was made when the handcuffs were applied:
16-1-104. Definitions

(1) The following definitions in this section are applicable generally in this code. Other terms which need definition, but which are used only in a limited number of sections of this code are defined in the particular section or article in which the terms appear. Definitions set forth in any section of this code are applicable whenever the same term is used in the same sense in another section of this code, unless the definition is specifically limited or the context indicates that it is inapplicable.

(9) "Custody" means the restraint of a person's freedom in any significant way.


Would you not consider being handcuffed to be restrained in a significant way?



http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arrest

A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2437

arrest

v. 1) to take or hold a suspected criminal with legal authority, as by a law enforcement officer. An arrest may be made legally based on a warrant issued by a court after receiving a sworn statement of probable cause to believe there has been a crime committed by this person, for an apparent crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or upon probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by that person. Once the arrest has been made, the officer must give the arrestee his/her rights ("Miranda rights") at the first practical moment, and either cite the person to appear in court or bring him/her in to jail. A person arrested must be brought before a judge for arraignment in a short time (e.g. within two business days), and have his/her bail set. A private "security guard" cannot actually arrest someone except by citizen's arrest, but can hold someone briefly until a law officer is summoned. A "citizen's arrest" can be made by any person when a crime has been committed in his/her presence. However, such self-help arrests can lead to lawsuits for "false arrest" if proved to be mistaken, unjustified or involving unnecessary holding. 2) to delay the enforcement of a judgment by a judge while errors in the record are corrected.
 
Last edited:
Handcuffed is absolutely an arrest. 100%.


100%? not really

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n5_v67/ai_20794167/

long article but heres a clip

The Supreme Court has cautioned that the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonableness" is not conducive to "precise definition or mechanical application."(7) There is no simple formula to be memorized. On the positive side, the relative ambiguity in this concept of "reasonableness" provides the necessary flexibility that permits officers to deal with the inherent variables of everyday law enforcement. The Supreme Court recognizes this point:

"We understand the desirability of providing law enforcement authorities with a clear rule to guide their conduct. Nevertheless, we question the wisdom of a rigid...limitation. Such a limit would undermine the equally important need to allow authorities to graduate their responses to the demands of any particular situation."(8)

In the absence of bright line rules, it may be taken as a general rule that officers engaged in investigative detentions should avoid levels of force normally associated with arrests - physical restraint, detention inside a police car, display of weapons, or the use of handcuffs. As the following cases illustrate, it is not true that using such levels of force will never be reasonable in an investigative detention or that their use always converts a detention into a de facto arrest. One federal appellate court has observed:

"This doctrinal flexibility allows officers to take the steps necessary to protect themselves when they have adequate reason to believe that stopping and questioning the suspect will pose particular risks to their safety .... It is because we consider both the inherent danger of the situation and the intrusiveness of the police action, that pointing a weapon at a suspect, and handcuffing him, or ordering him to lie on the ground, or placing him in a police car will not automatically convert an investigatory stop into an arrest that requires probable cause."(9)
 
In addition, Colorado Revised Statute provides this:

16-3-102. Arrest by peace officer

(1) A peace officer may arrest a person when:

(a) He has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or

(b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence; or

(c) He has probable cause to believe that an offense was committed and has probable cause to believe that the offense was committed by the person to be arrested.


Exactly what probable cause did the officers' have to believe that EACH PERSON they handcuffed had committed the offense? NONE.

Again, I can predict with about 90% accuracy that a person present at the Wal Mart in my town has some type of arrest warrant issued for them. So, if I call 911 and report to them that there is A person at Wal Mart with an active arrest warrant, does that give the police the power to handcuff everybody in Wal Mart until they find that one person who has an upaid traffic ticket or child support and an arrest warrant issued?

I don't have a description or anything like that, but 90% of the time there will be at least one person within any good sized Wal Mart in this country that is wanted for something.
 
you wanna equate your scenario with this case where they had a tracking device with the money? and could determine that the suspect was in that intersection? and did in fact get him there? really?
 
cassandrasdaddy,

What reasonable suspicion did the officers' have that the 40+ persons they detained, using force, had committed any crime?

Like someone else has said, what if the "reliable tip" or the tracking device showed the bank robbers were at Denver International Airport at a time suitable for the bank robbers to have driven to the airport? Would you consider it equally as reasonable and justifiable for the police to lock down and detain everyone in the airport and conduct "consensual" searches?
 
it doesn't matter what i think or you for that matter its what the men in the long black dresses think. and the article above listed a series of rulings


the cops didn't think the 40 folks did a crime they just knew that one of them did. and using that info they safely grabbed him. most telling is that none of the complaints came from those detained.
 
cassandrasdaddy said:
you wanna equate your scenario with this case where they had a tracking device with the money? and could determine that the suspect was in that intersection? and did in fact get him there? really?
Click to expand...

Did the police have reasonable suspicion (or probable cause) to believe the bank robber was present in any one of the cars, or did they simply have an indication that the tracking device itself was located within a certain geographical location plus or minus the known limits of the specific technology?
 
Last edited:
it would scare some folks if they knew how specific that tech has gotten.
given the time frame i suppose we can look to see a court decide if they had a reasonable suspicion. though some would say the fact they grabbed the guy would make it more reasonable. what time was the intersection locked down?
 
though some would say the fact they grabbed the guy would make it more reasonable.
Click to expand...

Sure, by why stop there? We could use an Amber Alert/reverse 911/emergency broadcast/public announcement type of system that requires citizens to lie spread-eagle on the ground whenever there’s a crime in their area until the police come along and allow them to return to their lives. :rolleyes:

Anyone who’s moving would obviously be a prime suspect.
 
cassandrasdaddy said:
it would scare some folks if they knew how specific that tech has gotten.
given the time frame i suppose we can look to see a court decide if they had a reasonable suspicion. though some would say the fact they grabbed the guy would make it more reasonable. what time was the intersection locked down?
Click to expand...
Not specific enough because the police were unable to lidentify the individual car, correct?

Also, I doubt the fact they ended up grabbing the guy is going to come into play in any of the upcoming civil trials.

I looked through several hundred federal appeals court and USSC cases and did not find any where the use of any type of tracking device was the sole basis for RS or PC.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Aurora detention scene
Replies
3
Views
567
hso
hso
D
  • Locked
(TN) Defendant gets sympathy, no slack
Replies
12
Views
725
Standing Wolf
S
J
  • Locked
Judges Lack Protections that Politicians get
Replies
20
Views
743
HankB
H
K
  • Locked
Another robber shoots self, but catches WMD charge? Is the Judge a WMD?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Bones11b
B
D
  • Locked
A Place Where Courts Put The Boot Into Gun-Toting Children
Replies
0
Views
680
Drizzt
D
Back
Top