Aurora Colorado mass stop

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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*
 
Well, the Hardy Boys, who only used guns in two stories, would have tracked them down by their tire tracks in the dust.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Fishing Cabin said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/

Above Source said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Source Below 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..
Click to expand...

http://coloradoindependent.com/1215...bber-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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top