Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
...for mine and your protection.

Ok, someone explain this to me. Can you be put in handcuffs without being arrested?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
I could be wrong....this is based on my extensive lack of detailed knowledge of the law :shattered: .....but I do believe that your rights DO trump the 'officers safety' statement that is often used....... Now I will have to say there is also not enough information about the situation......What was the reason / circumstances?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
CoffeeMate said:
Savvy Jack said:
Can you be put in handcuffs without being arrested?
Yes.
I imagine the reason would be for an investigation of some sort? I mean I have seen handcuffs put on for detaining a suspect and then the person being set free.....but it was for an investigation. Why did he feel that he needed to for his and your safety?......
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,886 Posts
Savvy Jack said:
...for mine and your protection.

Ok, someone explain this to me. Can you be put in handcuffs without being arrested?
You can be put in handcuffs without being arrested, but as far as I know you can not be put in handcuffs without being detained. If one gets right down to the nitty-gritty, the Constitution does not use either the phrase 'arrest' nor 'detention', it uses 'seized'. If you've been handcuffed, then by damn you've been 'seized'. Let the legal repercussions flow from that.

The next question is; does one bring suit for 'illegal detainment' or 'unlawful detention'?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Fallschirmjäger said:
[quote="Savvy Jack":199mh8hn]...for mine and your protection.

Ok, someone explain this to me. Can you be put in handcuffs without being arrested?
You can be put in handcuffs without being arrested, but as far as I know you can not be put in handcuffs without being detained. If one gets right down to the nitty-gritty, the Constitution does not use either the phrase 'arrest' nor 'detention', it uses 'seized'. If you've been handcuffed, then by damn you've been 'seized'. Let the legal repercussions flow from that.

The next question is; does one bring suit for 'illegal detainment' or 'unlawful detention'?[/quote:199mh8hn]
Exactly my question, and like I said before it really begs for more information as to circumstances / situation.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
It's an investigative detention as permitted by Terry v Ohio for "officer safety". If the officer needs not to arrest you he will uncuff you and set you free. If the officer arrests you you'll get mirandized.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
smn said:
It's an investigative detention as permitted by Terry v Ohio for "officer safety". If the officer needs not to arrest you he will uncut you and set you free. If the officer arrests you you'll get mirandized.
Enough said......I stand educated and corrected....thank you for the clarification :righton:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
672 Posts
smn said:
It's an investigative detention as permitted by Terry v Ohio for "officer safety". If the officer needs not to arrest you he will uncut you and set you free. If the officer arrests you you'll get mirandized.
Not necessarily, just because one is arrested does not require that one be mirandized. Of the hundreds of arrests I've made I might have been required to read miranda to 10% or less of those individuals. Miranda is only required if one is being questioned about the crime for which one was already under arrest. Most of the time I already had all of the information I needed to make the case without having to question someone post-arrest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,501 Posts
Jk30265 said:
smn said:
It's an investigative detention as permitted by Terry v Ohio for "officer safety". If the officer needs not to arrest you he will uncut you and set you free. If the officer arrests you you'll get mirandized.
Not necessarily, just because one is arrested does not require that one be mirandized. Of the hundreds of arrests I've made I might have been required to read miranda to 10% or less of those individuals. Miranda is only required if one is being questioned about the crime for which one was already under arrest. Most of the time I already had all of the information I needed to make the case without having to question someone post-arrest.
OK.....do I need to put one or both feet back on the confussed wagon?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,117 Posts
Mirandized or not, if you take a ride you're arrested.

Here's the money quote from Terry v Ohio:
In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,352 Posts
Officers safety over rules any law

SO THEY SAY!!!

I know a cop that said he can take someones weapon off them and out of their car without permission nor a warrant . He stated to me that officer safety over rules any law and rights that anyone has. I TOLD HIM , YOU JUST HAVEN'T MET THAT ONE THAT WILL STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
No facts yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,847 Posts
Savvy Jack said:
...for mine and your protection.

Ok, someone explain this to me. Can you be put in handcuffs without being arrested?
Was it one of those stripper cops? :lol: I got cuffed by one of those at a bachelor party. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,894 Posts
Tech5 said:
Officers safety over rules any law

SO THEY SAY!!!

I know a cop that said he can take someones weapon off them and out of their car without permission nor a warrant . He stated to me that officer safety over rules any law and rights that anyone has. I TOLD HIM , YOU JUST HAVEN'T MET THAT ONE THAT WILL STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS!
I've met one of these as well. It's amazing how much power theh think they have
 

·
Junior Butt Warmer
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Tech5 said:
Officers safety over rules any law

SO THEY SAY!!!

I know a cop that said he can take someones weapon off them and out of their car without permission nor a warrant . He stated to me that officer safety over rules any law and rights that anyone has. I TOLD HIM , YOU JUST HAVEN'T MET THAT ONE THAT WILL STAND UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS!
Being empowered to reasonably protect oneself from harm is not at all the same thing as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,844 Posts
When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others
Terry VS Ohio suggests justification for "believing" the individual is "armed and presently dangerous", I take that as sitrep and proper articulation will get the officer a pass and sitrep and improper articulation opens them up for trouble.....dunno.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
Jk30265 said:
smn said:
It's an investigative detention as permitted by Terry v Ohio for "officer safety". If the officer needs not to arrest you he will uncut you and set you free. If the officer arrests you you'll get mirandized.
Not necessarily, just because one is arrested does not require that one be mirandized. Of the hundreds of arrests I've made I might have been required to read miranda to 10% or less of those individuals. Miranda is only required if one is being questioned about the crime for which one was already under arrest. Most of the time I already had all of the information I needed to make the case without having to question someone post-arrest.
Exactly. Miranda is only required when custodial interrogation occurs.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
AirCrew said:
Terry VS Ohio suggests justification for "believing" the individual is "armed and presently dangerous", I take that as sitrep and proper articulation will get the officer a pass and sitrep and improper articulation opens them up for trouble.....dunno.
So what about just "presently dangerous" if the person is not armed? What justifies "dangerous"?

Technically you guys answered my question but now examples are running rapid!

So it seems to me that basically if the officer feels he is in danger he can cuff you.

Knife, Gun, Anger, Verbal Threats, baseball bat, Hammer, bottle, etc
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top