PDA

View Full Version : Aurora Colorado mass stop


geetarman
June 5, 2012, 11:18 AM
It seems their was a bank robbery in Aurora, Colorado and an anonymous tip phoned into police, indicated the perp was in a car at an intersection.

Here is a link to the story.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/police-stop-handcuff-every-adult-at-intersection-in-search-for-bank-robber/

The police proceeded to stop every car at the intersection and handcuff the occupants while they searched for the perp.

According to the report, they did find the person/s responsible and charged the person/s.

Question for the attorneys here and LEOs.

What happened to the Fourth Amendment here? Was this a good stop or has the city opened the gate to a bunch of lawsuits?

The police response is that it was an unusual circumstance requiring an unusual response.

When something similar happens, do we throw a bunch of people into the pool of the great unwashed and keep everyone in custody in hopes of catching the bad guys?

I am really disturbed by what seems to be a very casual disregard of the Bill of Rights.

Opinions please.

Geetarman:(

aarondhgraham
June 5, 2012, 11:28 AM
I need a deep pocket lawsuit,,,
I have student loans to pay off here.

Typical "end justifying the means" scenario.

The actions of the police have been met with some criticism, but Fania said this was a unique situation that required an unusual response.
“It’s hard to say what normal is in a situation like this when you haven’t dealt with a situation like this,” Fania said. “The result of the whole ordeal is that it paid off. We have arrested and charged a suspect.”

So in his opinion any "unusual situation",,,
Justifies throwing the Bill of Rights out the door.

Aarond

.

icedog88
June 5, 2012, 11:38 AM
I am pretty sure there will be lawsuits regardless if the city says it was justified or not. Detaining everyone and cuffing them is a disturbing precedent to set IMO.

Wyoredman
June 5, 2012, 11:41 AM
The spokesman stated "... we didn't have a description, ...". It sounds like anyone who was at that intersection and had a firearm in the vehicle would have been considered a bank robbery suspect!

I think this is going to get bad. Outrageous. I just hope that some has the guts to file a lawsuit!

KenL
June 5, 2012, 11:42 AM
We don't call it "Saudi Aurora" for nothin'!!

Pilot
June 5, 2012, 12:59 PM
If they did that in Aurora, imagine what they'd do in Commerce City!

:D

oneounceload
June 5, 2012, 04:20 PM
The police response is that it was an unusual circumstance requiring an unusual response

This is the typical response whenever they really can't justify breaking the law or violating the Constitution - and then it becomes their justification for more intrusions (like drones, red light cameras, etc)

Salmoneye
June 5, 2012, 05:15 PM
Does the actual criminal have a case for tossing out the 'evidence' due to no 'articulable reason' for the stop/search?

KyJim
June 5, 2012, 05:34 PM
The stop itself might pass muster but handcuffing everyone is over the line. If the robber really consented to the search, then the seized evidence would probably come in. If not, the evidence would be tossed out since the police obviously had no probable cause to believe that particular car was the one.

I really couldn't believe 19 people would consent to have their cars searched but, after thinking about it for a minute, realized that this is what sheeple do.

Aguila Blanca
June 5, 2012, 06:37 PM
I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever that the police didn't have a description. The basic rule established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Terry v. Ohio was (and still is) that in order to detain a suspect (which placing someone in handcuffs certainly is) requires that the officer(s) have "a reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts that the suspect has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime."

The fact that a bank was robbed and I happened to be driving on Main Street a few minutes after the robbery does not IMHO appear to provide any clearly articulable basis for suspecting that I committed the crime. I think (and I devoutly hope) the police department is looking at a number of lawsuits for unlawful restraint and violation of civil rights under color of law.

But maybe it was justified, since the suspect was armed with "high-powered" handguns. Those are much worse than regular handguns, of course. (What IS a "High-powered" handgun, anyway? They were both semi-autos, so no .44 Magnums involved.)

oneounceload
June 5, 2012, 08:44 PM
They were both semi-autos, so no .44 Magnums involved.)

Desert Eagles and Auto Mags notwithstanding?........;)

Aguila Blanca
June 5, 2012, 09:39 PM
Desert Eagles and Auto Mags notwithstanding?.......
T'warn't neither one o' them ...

Conn. Trooper
June 6, 2012, 07:58 AM
They would have to have a carved in stone 100% reliable informant that could place the guy at that interesction at that moment. IMO.

geetarman
June 6, 2012, 09:01 AM
They would have to have a carved in stone 100% reliable informant that could place the guy at that interesction at that moment. IMO.

So, what would you have done had you been an officer on scene?

Please understand I am not being critical, I am really interested in what you would have done if you had received a radio call to shut down the intersection and do the mass stop the police in Aurora did.

Geetarman:(

Conn. Trooper
June 6, 2012, 09:16 AM
I would have called in for more details, and if I was told that there was reliable information that an armed robber was at that red light, at that moment, I would act on that information. I am not sure what took 2 hours, or what information they had in front of them, but it's not something you can ignore.

I understand the thought of detaining every person at an intersection for 2 hours sounds bad, and may end up being a bad search after judicial review, but I don't see how they could ignore information about an armed robber being at that location.

I had a similar situation a few weeks ago, guy calls up and says his daughter is sending him text messages that she has been kidnapped. She tells him via text that she is riding around somewhere on Rte. 202 in a Jeep with one white guy and one black guy. I find a Jeep with one white guy, one black guy, stop it, and ta da, she is in the back seat. There was more to the story after the fact that came out, like she is a hooker and was supposed to be paid in cocaine fo riding around and having sex with these two guys. The cocaine was in the car and the two guys freely admitted they bought the coke to give her for sex. She was worried because they had been riding around for over an hour, no coke and no sex. But it came in as a kidnapping.

geetarman
June 6, 2012, 09:40 AM
I would have called in for more details, and if I was told that there was reliable information that an armed robber was at that red light, at that moment, I would act on that information. I am not sure what took 2 hours, or what information they had in front of them, but it's not something you can ignore.

Thanks for the response. I am sure this incident is going to undergo much scrutiny.

Geetarman:D

Patriot86
June 6, 2012, 09:44 AM
@ Conn Trooper, in your case you had a somewhat specific description. A jeep with one white guy and one black guy in it. I imagine those are rare. Maybe 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000 jeeps on the road on Rte. 202.
You had a location, description of the suspects and the type of car they were driving.


In this case there was no description perhaps other than a male suspect, no car type, color etc simply HE WILL BE THERE. I ask how would you feel if you were in a mall and someone stole some Jewelry. Without a description beyond male, they handcuffed every male in the mall until the bad guy was found? I imagine you would be none too happy.

If it had been even a vague description of the man or his car: E: Young white male, 50 year old black male, white male driving a black car I would be a bit more understanding.

If memory serves It was in the 80's here in Chicago, Police Officers would take sniper fire from giant public housing buildings (more compelling than the evidence of criminal presence than in this case) then go in and sweep the whole building. In the end every single illegal item the cops turned up was typically thrown out in court and few if any charged because the courts found the cops did not have proof which specific apartment/s the fire was coming from.

IMO The police cannot simply detain every single individual in a fully public location (a road) because they have a tip a bad guy is there. The handcuffing part is excessive, as a good citizen knowing I have nothing to hide I would probably have just let the officers search my car so they can get on to finding the perp. But had I been handcuffed for no reason for two hours I imagine most of us would be pretty annoyed and probably be looking into legal action.

oneounceload
June 6, 2012, 10:21 AM
MO The police cannot simply detain every single individual in a fully public location (a road) because they have a tip a bad guy is there.

Ah, but they are doing these things all over - especially in NYC where they claim "the right" to stop you for no reason, frisk you and question you - especially if you fit a few certain "profiles" - and then they trot out the guns, drugs, etc., and boast how safe the streets are

Seems that Ben Franklin comment ab out freedom and security needs to be drummed into the voters' heads before election time

Patriot86
June 6, 2012, 11:27 AM
@oneounceload: Just because they do does not make it right, we need a big civil rights pushback, maybe from the ACLU on this?
Let me re-phrase by saying: The police SHOULD NOT be able to do mass stops like this, or stop and frisk for that matter(not to get side tracked).

I do not know the law in Colorado but some states treat the car like an extension of the home, this case has implications that the police can enter your home, without a warrant, search your home, handcuff you simply because they think a criminal "is in the area".

Salmoneye
June 6, 2012, 11:52 AM
Something just does not add up...

'Reliable' information that made them 'certain' that the robber was at that EXACT location, but no description whatsoever?


C'mon...

Ronbert
June 6, 2012, 02:45 PM
I didn't follow it closely on the local news so I might have errors but.... I understand the suspect was somehow pursued to that intersection.

And I gather that when the intersection was locked down, people were ordered out of their cars AT GUNPOINT, handcuffed en masse, and waited for hours. That is not the time to object on any grounds at all - especially when looking down the cop's gun muzzle. The cop mindset at the time would make it a bad time to be legally carrying concealed.

I hope the court cases move swiftly and decisively against the City of Aurora.

JustThisGuy
June 6, 2012, 03:33 PM
I've been following this and it seems that the police did make an arrest in the last car they searched, which had 2 handguns in it. However these were apparently unrelated to the bank robbery.

The Chief of Police conducted a TV interview in which he praised his officers for their quick thinking and innovative policing tactics (if by innovative he means completely illegal). He prominently mentioned the arrest, and lead reporters to believe that the arrested person was the bank robber (but there is no proof that the arrested person was the bank robber {no money, just guns}).

More below...

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/1075-colorado-police-handcuff-every-adult-at-an-intersection
http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2012/06/06/get-out-your-checkbook-aurora-co/

This looks like it was a clear violation of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in City of Indianapolis v. Edmund, 513 U.S. 32 (2000)

Aguila Blanca
June 6, 2012, 04:49 PM
Yes, I saw an interview with the chief of police, and the impression I had from his statements was very clearly that they had arrested the bank robber.

Further, I believe they knew at least that the robber was male, yet they pulled women out of their cars and handcuffed them.

I think Aurora, CO, is going to be needing some very deep pockets.

oneounceload
June 6, 2012, 04:52 PM
Patriot - I am in complete agreement - I would have liked to see the public revolt against the police and handcuff them to their own police cars, but I am a bit of an anarchist in that regard

As a Libertarian, I abhor the way LE at every level violates everyones' rights "in the name of safety"

Conn. Trooper
June 6, 2012, 06:03 PM
Women can kill you too. A cop my father worked with back in the day was killed in an incident where the intial approach was made, a woman driving. In the back of the van was armed robbers, who promptly exited the van and killed my fathers friend and another cop.

From the odmp website.

The truck was stopped at a roadblock manned by several Nyack officers.

One of the female occupants in the cab of the truck told the officers their guns were making her nervous. Thinking they had stopped the wrong truck, the officers began to holster their weapons. Almost immediately afterwards several of the heavily armed men exited the back of the truck and opened fire with automatic weapons, fatally wounding Officer Brown and Sergeant O'Grady.
Read more: http://www.odmp.org/officer/10136-sergeant-edward-j-ogrady-jr#ixzz1x3bbcq14

Technosavant
June 6, 2012, 08:03 PM
Women can kill you too.

Yeah, but then again, very few women are out there just killing cops at random. I think the point was that if they were looking for a MALE robber, why cuff all these random women too?

Maybe the Aurora cops had received a shipment of new cuffs and were looking to try them out, but this is looking more and more like a massive violation of the law and the civil rights of everybody at that place and time than it is a legit police move.

deguello
June 7, 2012, 05:04 AM
Am I really the first one to think of this? What if the robber was the one that sent in the tip, so he could have an easier escape route in another direction? Anyway, if I was one of the people there and I was suing for millions, I'd be willing to settle for $1 if the city fired the people responsible.

thallub
June 7, 2012, 07:08 AM
Judge Napolitano on the Aurora, CO cops:

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/06/was-it-lawful-for-colorado-police-to-stop-and-arrest-every-adult-at-intersection-to-find-bank-robber/


The big picture here is that the police in this small Colorado town applied tactics that are forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, and which were perfected by the SS in Nazi Germany, in order to make their job easier. Nazi Germany had the lowest crime rate of any modern society; but it had no freedom. The cops and the SS regularly arrested groups until they found the person they wanted. We fought World War II in large measure to prevent such behavior by the government.

Here is the law. The government may stop a person temporarily–for a few minutes and in public–and ask questions of the person only when it has “articulable suspicion” about that person. The suspicion must be based on objective observations, not immutable characteristics (such as race or gender) or group characteristics (such as location or beliefs).

geetarman
June 7, 2012, 09:40 AM
This is starting to get VERY interesting.

Geetarman:D

BlueTrain
June 7, 2012, 12:18 PM
I don't know what the crime rate in Nazi Germany was, nor what it was in the US at the time. But I also know that in spite of many people being afraid of the secret police and the SS, there were also many people who supported them, happily turning in their neighbors. After all, where do you think the SS and the Gestapo were recruited? Same with your neighbors.

Life in the 1950s may have seem idylic from the distance of a half-century but you all fail to remember the perceived breakdown in both the social order and in real law and order, although it was worse in some places than in others. People generally wanted the police to act and mostly, I'd say they still do. You people may be afraid of government (in a vague way) and the police. Other people are much more afraid of other people, perhaps with some justification.

Another thing people prefer to ignore or maybe aren't even aware of is the pressure that some have to live under. A bank is robbed, someone is killed, and there is a lot of pressure on the police to do something.

BGutzman
June 7, 2012, 12:35 PM
Clearly a civil rights violation that should result in criminal charges against all officers involved and the city should be sued out of existance...

I truly believe in supporting law enforcement but this is not acceptable for any reason..

hermannr
June 7, 2012, 01:25 PM
I think this is going to cost that city a lot of money. Very clearly illegal. When they cuffed everyone, that scaled it up to arrest, and it will cost them dearly.

icedog88
June 7, 2012, 02:24 PM
When they cuffed everyone, that scaled it up to arrest,

Once, I was cuffed and the police report stated at that time I was not under arrest, I was being detained and placed in handcuffs for my protection!:eek:

Conn. Trooper
June 7, 2012, 03:05 PM
You can be detained, even in handcuffs, and not be arrested.

icedog88
June 7, 2012, 03:18 PM
Conn. Trooper;
That's my point to a degree. But, detaining EVERYONE? Without a description of the suspects? Seems a bit out of line to put it diplomatically.

Conn. Trooper
June 7, 2012, 03:27 PM
I don't even have as big an issue with the detention if the information that the robber was at that loaction at that very minute, and that information was credible and reliable. I have an issue with the 2 hours. What could possibly take 2 hours to sort out?

I have detained people in good faith, thinking they may have been involved in an incident, only to find out through further investigation they were not involved. I can see that, I can't see the 2 hours.

aarondhgraham
June 7, 2012, 03:58 PM
Once, I was cuffed and the police report stated at that time I was not under arrest, I was being detained and placed in handcuffs for my protection!

I hate that "for your own protection" excuse,,,
And that's all it really is,,,
A lame excuse.

It's so the officer can feel safer or establish easy control of a situation,,,
The only one I need protection from is the man with the handcuffs.

LE in general is slowly assuming authority that is not legislated to them,,,
I truly want Aurora (I lived there in the 70's) to suffer some financial damage here,,,
And if possible I would like to see the FBI come in and levy some charges for civil rights violations under color of authority.

But their argument will be that "it worked",,,
Thereby justifying a negative means with a positive outcome.

Aarond

.

zxcvbob
June 7, 2012, 04:10 PM
Can anyone tell if this is a real picture or if the kid was photoshopped in?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Aurora-brutality.jpg

Salmoneye
June 7, 2012, 04:26 PM
A bank is robbed, someone is killed, and there is a lot of pressure on the police to do something.

What did I miss?

:confused:

carguychris
June 7, 2012, 04:44 PM
Can anyone tell if this is a real picture or if the kid was photoshopped in?
I think the cops with the shotgun and the shield were photoshopped in. They are in sharper focus than everything around them.

Where did that picture come from?

zxcvbob
June 7, 2012, 06:10 PM
I saw the picture all over the place yesterday, but today it's mostly gone. I've also seen basically the same picture zoomed in just a little closer without the kid (but not close enough to crop the kid out of the shot.) The one I linked is at lewrockwell.com

BGutzman
June 8, 2012, 10:29 AM
The pic does seem to bare the artifacts of photoshop...

NJgunowner
June 8, 2012, 10:37 AM
Photoshop, and it's only passable by my standards :p

Fishing_Cabin
June 8, 2012, 11:45 AM
I had withheld my comments earlier because I thought they "had to have a concrete" tip to base this on. To quote the story:

A GPS tracking device hidden with stacks of cash allowed police to track a suspected bank robber before a controversial traffic stop Saturday, according to testimony this morning.

Source: http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/cops-used-gps-to-track-bank-robber/

Unsure of the exact details of the system, but while GPS is good at getting a rough immediate area to locate something, such as this tracking device, what this case will come down to is exactly how large of an area would be reasonable for the officers to detain and possibly search.

A rough rule to go by is if a LEO goes out with specific information in hand to find a suspect in a crime that already happened, the LEO is more solid in court. I feel this case may have a chance of going up the ladder to decide of where to draw the line.

Aguila Blanca
June 8, 2012, 01:27 PM
It may have to go up the chain a level or two but I don't think there's any question that the actions of the police were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that a "brief" detention is allowable if there are specific, clearly articulable facts to support a reasonable suspicion that the person (or persons) being detained might be the criminal actor. I think "We got a GPS signal that he's somewhere in the area" is pushing the envelope of "reasonable suspicion based on clearly articulable facts" on its own, but when you factor in that everyone was detained for two HOURS I think it clearly crosses the line into unconstitutional detention.

Don H
June 8, 2012, 01:27 PM
Good thing this robbery didn't take place at, say, the Town Center Mall in Aurora or the police would have happily inconvenienced a few thousand people with their "innovative" tactics.

Salmoneye
June 8, 2012, 03:03 PM
Don't suppose they could have let the guy just drive a mile down the road till they were sure it was THAT vehicle, huh?

*facepalm*

BlueTrain
June 8, 2012, 03:22 PM
Well, the Hardy Boys, who only used guns in two stories, would have tracked them down by their tire tracks in the dust.

MLeake
June 8, 2012, 09:30 PM
Salmoneye makes a very good point.

If they were tracking a GPS locator, one would think they'd track it to an area with fewer cars, fewer bystanders, fewer potential hostages and bullet sponges...

So I'd say this was not only constitutionally unsound, but tactically unsound.

Fishing_Cabin
June 8, 2012, 10:28 PM
Frankly I can understand the LE side of darned if you do, and darned if you dont. Looking at this from the outside it is a no win situation no matter what is done really. If they try to take them at the intersection we have what we have. If they tried to take them down the road, who knows what could have happened. We can go on with "what if's" for a long time...

I unfortunatly dont know of an easy answer that is always right. I am going to be watching how this case proceeds in the court system.

KyJim
June 8, 2012, 11:16 PM
The leading U.S. Supreme Court case is City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). The city set up a number of roadblocks where they stopped cars according to a prearranged sequence and asked for license/registration and observed the drivers for evidence of impairment, visually checked the passenger compartment but did not search without consent unless probable cause was evident. They used a drug dog to sniff the cars. Detention was no more than five minutes.

The Court held this was an unconstitutional search and seizure, "We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes." Edmond at 44.

The court noted a very important exception:
Of course, there are circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint where the primary purpose would otherwise, but for some emergency, relate to ordinary crime control. For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. See 183 F.3d, at 662–663. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction. Edmond at 44.

Although technically not the holding of the Court, it seems clear that the type of roadblock and stop that happened here likely passes constitutional muster, at least initially. ConnTrooper, and others, hit the nail on the head when pointing out the length of delay. A detention of this type can last only long enough to determine if there is probable cause a particular person committed a crime or has contraband.

This is all very fact driven. If the description of the bank robber is of a white male, then the length of time police may detain a female or a black male might be less than the length of time to detain a white male. There may be other factors that would play into this as well.

MLeake
June 8, 2012, 11:29 PM
Fishing Cabin and Conn Trooper, I realize in a way we are playing what if's.... but it seems to me that many (if not most) departments encourage officers to find more suitable places to stop suspects, if given the option, than crowded public arenas.

If the bank robber had come at the officers, weapon in hand, that's different.

The officers chose the point of engagement in this instance.

If they really were tracking a GPS beacon, then their tactics were really poor.

That isn't an attack on police in general, it's an attack on the officers who made this truly stupid decision.

Aguila Blanca
June 9, 2012, 12:42 AM
Frankly I can understand the LE side of darned if you do, and darned if you dont. Looking at this from the outside it is a no win situation no matter what is done really. If they try to take them at the intersection we have what we have. If they tried to take them down the road, who knows what could have happened. We can go on with "what if's" for a long time...

In truth, we were extremely fortunate to have had what we had. How many cars were jammed into that intersection? Suppose the perpetrator had chosen to come out shooting? Suppose he had grabbed a hostage?

I agree that the "innovative" tactics employed by the Aurora PD were rather unsound.

icedog88
June 9, 2012, 06:42 AM
The court noted a very important exception:
Quote:
Of course, there are circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint where the primary purpose would otherwise, but for some emergency, relate to ordinary crime control. For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. See 183 F.3d, at 662–663. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction.

This says nothing about cuffing everyone in the intersection. A checkpoint seems to be reasonable. Check cars as they proceed through the intersection. A mass detention does not.

Pilot
June 9, 2012, 07:05 AM
I wonder if there will be an legal action taken by some of the detainees. I hope so. It sounds like a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Mello2u
June 9, 2012, 12:21 PM
I was taught in law school that every traffic stop is an arrest; a non-custodial arrest.

Every stop by law enforcement where a person is not free to go is an arrest.

However, there is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority.

Whether someone is arrested turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go.

maestro pistolero
June 9, 2012, 12:59 PM
Police operate within a two-tiered process. You can be detained briefly under a lower standard than the one under which you may be arrested. My understanding is that a traffic stop is a detention which has somewhat flexible, but limited time constraints based on the facts.

zxcvbob
June 9, 2012, 01:09 PM
Handcuffs pretty much makes it an arrest. (what do you think they would have charged someone with if they refused?)

Ultimately they'll claim they cuffed everybody for Officer Safety. That always works.

Fishing_Cabin
June 9, 2012, 02:38 PM
MLeake and Aguila,

While the "what if's" are good and actually spur debate to expand knowledge and to encourage keeping an open mind, beyond that the majority of details havent been released yet. There has been mentioned made that the suspect had possibly taken hostage(s).

Source: http://kdvr.com/2012/06/02/aurora-police-searching-for-bank-robbery-suspect/

According to witnesses, the adult occupants of the vehicles were handcuffed and led away from their cars after reports the suspect might have taken hostages.

If the suspect had been allowed to continue on for a way and had killed someone, it would have been discussed why didnt the police act sooner, which I feel is a fair "what if" to consider as well.

The main reason the case is very interesting to me, is I am looking to see what the court system has to say about the detention of this number of people for this period of time. There have been cases involving a few people being detained and establishing a reasonable time. If the court upholds the detention, it will be interesting to see what the court does say about length of time they are held. Also, it will be interesting to see just how many cars/people the officers could legally hold in a situation such as this.

Also it is important to note that a lawyer who has worked with the ACLU according to the following news source said: he has been contacted by several of the people detained Saturday afternoon by Aurora police and that he is looking into whether or not to pursue litigation against the city. He told KHOW later that he thought the city may have been within its rights..

http://coloradoindependent.com/121558/in-nabbing-bank-robber-aurora-cops-set-off-constituional-alarms

This isnt an open and shut case in any way, but will need to be looked at over time.

There are many others that feel that the officers over stepped their authority as well. This will continue to be debated for a while, and has a good chance of making some good case law.

Patriot86
June 9, 2012, 03:01 PM
Now that we KNOW it was a GPS tracking device who is the mo mo who decided to confront an armed suspect with 20 other cars around? Why not wait a mile..two miles..5 miles until they could not only narrow down the suspect car but also stop it in an area that is less populated. What would have happened if the bank robber came out guns a blazing with an AK-47 and killed some of those motorists? The more I learn the more I have to question some of the basic tactical leadership of the LEO's in command in this case.

I understand there is a concern about a hostage but what is perhaps 1 or 2 hostages weighed against 20 some odd motorists? Last time I checked 2 is way less than 20...This whole stop just seems reckless to me.

Fishing_Cabin
June 9, 2012, 10:10 PM
Patriot86,

While I am not thrilled with this situation, there comes a time when there is a choice to be made. Frankly I am not thrilled with any bank robbery to be honest. I would prefer there had been less people involved but given that there is a bank robbery and the history of violence with some bank robberies, one should ask who is more important than who. Meaning, if there was a shootout, was the people there and detained at this intersection more important, or are others down the road if there was a chase that may have been involved in a shootout more important, or who? Just who is more important... Kind of a difficult question. Thankfully this bank robber did not fire on others.

Now that we KNOW it was a GPS tracking device who is the mo mo who decided to confront an armed suspect with 20 other cars around? Why not wait a mile..two miles..5 miles until they could not only narrow down the suspect car but also stop it in an area that is less populated. What would have happened if the bank robber came out guns a blazing with an AK-47 and killed some of those motorists? The more I learn the more I have to question some of the basic tactical leadership of the LEO's in command in this case.

I understand there is a concern about a hostage but what is perhaps 1 or 2 hostages weighed against 20 some odd motorists? Last time I checked 2 is way less than 20...This whole stop just seems reckless to me.

From the videos of chases I have seen there are almost always way more then 20 innocent people involved that just happen to be on the same road, area, etc. I could ask the same question of "who is the mo mo that decided to let the person through and let a chase begin instead of keeping him trapped at the intersection? Or who let this mo mo through and let him shoot others or shoot at others in a chase?"

Dealing with a person robbing a bank, who, according to the early news source I posted earlier may have hostage(s), there is no great solution that doesnt place people in danger. I also dont think this robber in aurora said "give me your money or I will tell you a bad joke." There was a threat made, and with the history of bank robberies there was a threat of violence.

Say, if the officers let this guy proceed through the intersection and a chase started like the one in Rock Hill S.C. by an officer on his way to work who was flagged down and told of a bank robbery, would those at the intersection have their lives valued more then the lives of those in/around a chase? This is the video I am referencing:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1618325116174896808#

After whatching this video that happened about 1 hour and 45 min away from me, can you honestly say that the people around this bank robber at the intersection in Aurora, that their lives where worth more then those around a possible chase like this rolling shootout/chase? Luckily in this video, no one else was hurt but the robber. I lost track of the cars, and possible people involved. Just which lives are more important? Thats never an easy answer. Just as its never easy to answer will this robber give up, or will there be a shoot out?

Either way, if they caught the guy at the intersection as they did, or if they let the guy through and a chase started, or in between. Lives are at risk in some way. There really isnt a way to avoid putting lives at risk. Its a gamble either way. I for one am glad it turned out safely for all.

As I said earlier, its up to the courts to decide just how many vehicles, and how large of an area, if at all can be be detained, or what settlement and how large it will be. I am not someone who is willing to give up rights either, but there again, I dont want someone to say their loved one died because LE let the badguys slip away and they tried again later with deadly results.

Edit to add...

MLeake,

I just realized I didnt answer your question earlier. it seems to me that many (if not most) departments encourage officers to find more suitable places to stop suspects, if given the option, than crowded public arenas.

Yes, most agencies encourage officers to find a suitable place to stop that involves the least risk to innocent people. With not only the public outcry, but also the risk involved in a chase, it has become preferable to try to wait until a vehicle that a suspect is in becomes tied up in traffic, if it is at all possible when there is the risk of a chase. Whether it is at an intersection such as this, or in another way. A simple traffic stop is one thing. But trying to corner a person such as a bank robber in this case, lately the choice is to try to reduce the possibility of a chase if possible. Having a limited number of folks that can be hopefully removed or evacuated has become preferable to having a fleeing person risking many people over many miles during a chase that may not be able to be removed/evacuated. There is no easy answer. There is always a level of risk involved. Honestly, there are many folks more intelligent then myself trying to find a solution to this very issue.

Have a great night all!

MLeake
June 9, 2012, 11:50 PM
Fishing Cabin,

First, please realize I'm not trying to harass you. Frankly, you have always been reasonable, and are being reasonable now, so you're simply a good person to play devil's advocate with.

But here's my take on the chase vs intercept in a bottleneck scenario:

Most chases don't involve bank robbers. Going for the intercept at lower overall rates of speed has a safety advantage, and when the likeliest threat posed by the chased is ramming or hitting something with the car, then taking advantage of the bottleneck and low speed impacts might make sense.

When the chased has to be assumed to be armed (for instance, a bank robber and possible kidnapper), and likely to employ violence, particularly firearm violence, an open area seems very preferable to a crowded one.

Salmoneye
June 10, 2012, 06:36 AM
one should ask who is more important than who. Meaning, if there was a shootout, was the people there and detained at this intersection more important, or are others down the road if there was a chase that may have been involved in a shootout more important, or who? Just who is more important... Kind of a difficult question.

I'm sorry...

"More Important"?

What does that even mean?

I agree with MLeake...Allowing the perp to proceed to an area where the GPS could differentiate between his vehicle and others, would have been the correct course of action...

hogdogs
June 10, 2012, 07:33 AM
While I may have forced the "POLICE BRUTALITY CARD" or worse an OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING... I would have refused to play their little silly childish REPEAL OF THE BoR... With force if needed, I would refuse to be a victim of un provoked restraint by LEO or anyone else!!!

After I fully provoke them, they will have all the reason they need to detain me!

DON'T TREAD ON ME.... Mean anything to anyone but me?

I know I am preaching to a well practiced choir...

Brent

Tom Servo
June 10, 2012, 09:28 AM
While I may have forced the "POLICE BRUTALITY CARD" or worse an OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING... I would have refused to play their little silly childish REPEAL OF THE BoR.
Let's slow down, folks. Yes, there are constitutional violations here, but the incompetent actions of one department do not amount to a repeal of the 4th Amendment.

Yeah, I'd have been on the phone to my attorney the minute the cuffs were off, but nothing I see here would have been solved or made better by use of force.

Let's do keep this discussion civilized if we want to keep it open.

Fishing_Cabin
June 10, 2012, 01:24 PM
Salmoneye,

I did not mean to offend you or anyone else. By saying "just whose life is more important?" what I tried to get across was that there was a very real risk for an innocent person to be injured, it doesnt matter how those officers decided to proceed. Many here have said the officers involved should have tried to stop the individual at a later time in another location. A valid point to consider indeed, but I am sure that if the officers had decided to, they would still possibly be accused of risking lives. If it had become a chase at some point, the folks that are anti-chase will be upset, asking why couldnt the officers catch the person without a chase and risking lives. As I see it, its honestly a no win situation because lives will still be at risk no matter what option is decided upon.

MLeake,

Hearing the complaints of chases, the huge risk involved in a chase is exactly why many agencies have come up with a no-chase policy, or a heavily restricted policy on a chase, not to mention the large settlements from those injured/killed in a chase. I wish I had an easy answer but I really dont.

Also MLeake, I enjoy you playing devils advocate, as it keeps me on my toes at times.

Salmoneye
June 10, 2012, 02:24 PM
Was not offended, I simply do not understand what you mean by 'who is more important'...

Any life is (or should be) weighed equally...

I do not believe that putting that many people at risk in an enclosed area was prudent...

The police (and all the innocent people needlessly put in harms way by them) are seriously lucky that the guy did not want to shoot his way out...

Conn. Trooper
June 10, 2012, 02:40 PM
I can not speak with any knowledge of how the GPS trackers work. Maybe they have a limited life, work a limited distance away from the bank, whatever, I don't know.

I don't agree with the length of the detention, but if I was attempting to locate armed bank robbers, I would detain everyone in cuffs too. Once it was determined they were not armed, or a threat, off go the cuffs, explain what happened so maybe they understand the situation and off they go. I would not want to be detained any longer than I had to be, but I also don't want armed bank robbers running around my town. I don't think anybody does.

Fishing_Cabin
June 10, 2012, 03:20 PM
Salmoneye,

I was trying to get across that no matter what choice was made, there were lives at risk, since an armed bank robbery is considered by some people to be a violent act itself. No matter what choice was made, it would probably be second guessed later. All lives ARE equal.

zxcvbob
June 10, 2012, 04:09 PM
I was trying to get across that no matter what choice was made, there were lives at risk, since an armed bank robbery is considered by some people to be a violent act itself. No matter what choice was made, it would probably be second guessed later. All lives ARE equal.


I almost agree with you, but they put actual people's lives at risk and forced them to sit there handcuffed in the danger zone versus letting the guy get down the road a ways and potentially putting people at risk. As far as "high speed chase" goes, don't they have radios in their cars? Radio ahead and intercept him instead of chasing from behind. I've never seen a car that can outrun a radio.

hogdogs
June 10, 2012, 08:37 PM
I have no lawyer number in my phone and "after the fact" lawsuits do nothing to protect my rights... That task is up to me in the moment...

Brent

Mr. James
June 10, 2012, 10:38 PM
Disgusting. I'm with hogdogs.

armygreen
June 11, 2012, 05:41 AM
it was a bank robber. armed yes, but not a terrorist with a bombvest. no human life was being threatened at that point in time, the actions were a gross over-reaction.

look how the the OJ "chase" was handled - and they knew he was armed.

if they thought they had a Tim McVeigh type on his way to do an OKC bombing type incident that may be different.
but a bank robber steals money , that's not human life. he wasn't trying to shoot anyone - he was trying to escape, he probably would endanger more civilians when they stop him in a crowd, than if they'd let him scoot a distance away. imo they endangered more lives, all in the hope of catching only a thief not a threat to life?

2ndly - why cuff these people? that made no sense. a road block to walk up and look inside cars while still standing outside the car, leaving occupants in their car if they didn't appear suspicious and didn't meet any description, etc. could have been okay.

i don't mind being stopped and asked some questions, in the interest of public safety.

they had way too little information (no description of perp? or car?)
and there wasn't any clear threat of mass casualties,

infact they created potential for high civilian casualties, if this were like the bankofamerica incident they just gave the uncaring shooter a ton of human shields / civilian targets / potential cars to jack / and potential hostages to take in a car.

this would've been an ineffective method even if it were in a country where it were totally legal.

what i'm also sad about is how many people accepted having weapons drawn on them, being taken out of their cars, being cuffed. but i'm beginning to lose sympathy for sheeple, if they get harmed do i need to care? am open to input, this is a question that's been on my mind lately.

oneounceload
June 11, 2012, 08:35 AM
I hope the Aurora PD and the city that allowed such actions are sued into non-existence. There are already severe violations going on in NYC with their stop & frisk actions - the only way to stop these tactics is either through violence (not recommended) or through the courts - when it becomes too expensive for them every time this happens, they will stop

dayman
June 11, 2012, 09:01 AM
Clearly a civil rights violation that should result in criminal charges against all officers involved and the city should be sued out of existance.
While I agree that those responsible should absolutely loose their jobs and possibly face charges, I disagree with the presumption that if something bad happens you should get money.
I understand that sometimes money is the only way to get people's attention, but presuming the city is willing to take appropriate action, what is a civil suit going to accomplish?
If people are so traumatized that they need therapy, the City should foot the bill, but it's litigious BS like this that has made medical care unaffordable, and gotten giant warnings stamped into the side of guns.
There's no mysterious pot of magical government money - it's the tax payers in Aurora who are going to wind up having to foot the bill.

IMHO it's a dangerous attitude when people start seeing the government as some entity separate from the people it represents.

Sorry for the rant.

oneounceload
June 11, 2012, 09:33 AM
Dayman - it wouldn't bother me to see some of it donated to a charity - but these folks were held against their will with no probable cause - the same tactics the Gestapo, KGB and other tyrannical government agencies used. The ONLY way to get them to stop is to make it SO expensive, repeatedly if necessary, that they stand down

Reread Franklin's quote about giving up security for safety if necessary - we need LESS nanny-state and big brother gov't, not more otherwise they will start to do what they are beginning in the UK - using cameras to profile to see if you look like the type ABOUT to commit a crime and arrest you beforehand.....
Remember Minority Report? It is starting to happen

zxcvbob
June 11, 2012, 11:05 AM
what i'm also sad about is how many people accepted having weapons drawn on them, being taken out of their cars, being cuffed. but i'm beginning to lose sympathy for sheeple

What else does one do in those circumstances? The cops have you outnumbered and they have the drop on you with superior weapons. Tactically, you have to surrender. Doesn't mean you should consent to any searches or be cooperative.

Tom Servo
June 11, 2012, 11:48 AM
Sheeple and Nazis and Stalin, oh my! I think we've covered all the ground we need to on this one.