A primer on handcuffing in non-arrest situations

[PALO]

Tonight btw, had another perfect example of why talking to the police can sometimes help you substantially.

Woman calls to report a domestic violence assault by her ex-boyfriend. She has an injury and she tells a story that establishes probable cause. Since it is a DV assault w/injury, it is one of the few crimes in WA (DV assaults and order violations are the only two) that are MANDATORY arrests based on PC. MANDATORY.

Contact the boyfriend. He is able to show that she has been stalking him (has text messages etc.) and that she stalked him today, tried to assault HIM, and he acted in self defense. His GF was able to corroborate his story. Long story short, it went from a mandatory arrest, to an "info" case with no charges pending. All because he., as a suspect, did decide to talk to us. If he hadn't, it would have been a mandatory arrest. His statement was able to vitiate the PC. He was able to point to an incident his mother had reported, that I was able to look up but wouldn't have known about, where the stalking was mentioned. And his "story" made more sense than her story about how she got the injury. She actually tried to punch him as he sat in his car and he grabbed her arm and that's how she got her injury (she told an entirely different story), but his story made more sense, he had his gf to back him up and when we brought them to the scene together, we were able to basically get her to "crack" about the holes in her story. Again, PERFECT example. Now, if you are guilty as hell, there are very good reasons (usually) not to talk, and sometimes when you are innocent. But in many cases, such as in this case, if you have a vindictive RP who wants you arrested and is willing to lie to get it to happen, and you don't talk, you very well may go to jail for something you didn't do. Fortunately, this gentleman was able to calmly establish that his account was more credible than hers. His GF was actually a suspect too, in some way, but we seperated them and they gave consistent statements that were so in accord that they totally established it was more likely he was innocent than not.

This case will never GO to court. It will never BE a case. Whereas if he was arrested, it would be. That's why, if you only look at court cases, it skews the data (about the benefits of talking), because you invariably see tons of cases where talking hurt the person - since they were arrested. In cases like this, where it HELPED them, it doesn't BECOME a court case, so a lawyer etc. would never know about it in the first place. Selection bias kicks in if you only look at charged cases.

cheers!

 

[Freedom1Man]

Tonight btw, had another perfect example of why talking to the police can sometimes help you substantially.

Woman calls to report a domestic violence assault by her ex-boyfriend. She has an injury and she tells a story that establishes probable cause. Since it is a DV assault w/injury, it is one of the few crimes in WA (DV assaults and order violations are the only two) that are MANDATORY arrests based on PC. MANDATORY.

Contact the boyfriend. He is able to show that she has been stalking him (has text messages etc.) and that she stalked him today, tried to assault HIM, and he acted in self defense. His GF was able to corroborate his story. Long story short, it went from a mandatory arrest, to an "info" case with no charges pending. All because he., as a suspect, did decide to talk to us. If he hadn't, it would have been a mandatory arrest. His statement was able to vitiate the PC. He was able to point to an incident his mother had reported, that I was able to look up but wouldn't have known about, where the stalking was mentioned. And his "story" made more sense than her story about how she got the injury. She actually tried to punch him as he sat in his car and he grabbed her arm and that's how she got her injury (she told an entirely different story), but his story made more sense, he had his gf to back him up and when we brought them to the scene together, we were able to basically get her to "crack" about the holes in her story. Again, PERFECT example. Now, if you are guilty as hell, there are very good reasons (usually) not to talk, and sometimes when you are innocent. But in many cases, such as in this case, if you have a vindictive RP who wants you arrested and is willing to lie to get it to happen, and you don't talk, you very well may go to jail for something you didn't do. Fortunately, this gentleman was able to calmly establish that his account was more credible than hers. His GF was actually a suspect too, in some way, but we seperated them and they gave consistent statements that were so in accord that they totally established it was more likely he was innocent than not.

This case will never GO to court. It will never BE a case. Whereas if he was arrested, it would be. That's why, if you only look at court cases, it skews the data (about the benefits of talking), because you invariably see tons of cases where talking hurt the person - since they were arrested. In cases like this, where it HELPED them, it doesn't BECOME a court case, so a lawyer etc. would never know about it in the first place. Selection bias kicks in if you only look at charged cases.

cheers!

Was he at the scene of the caller when you arrived?

 

[OC for ME]

A unsubstantiated allegation (story) of DV provides PC and thus mandates the arrest of the accused. I do not know what to think about this. Why the accuser was not hauled off to jail for making a false claim to LE is absent from PALO's story.

If I am handcuffed as the result of a unsubstantiated allegation (MWAG) I would not be talking to that cop or any cop involved in blindly arresting me without first conducting a investigation as the lawfulness of the arrest or the validity of the allegation.

Anyway, we are here to discuss why a LE official firmly believes that the handcuffing of a citizen is, or is not, a arrest. It seems that the state of WA does not define arrest and thus provides PALO with the wiggle room to physically restrain a citizen via the use of handcuffs and not be held liable for that act.

 

[OC for ME]

A woman who suffered a broken orbital bone in her face and other injuries during her arrest on a DUI charge was the victim of police brutality, her lawyer said.

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/...cern-from-prosecutors?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Florida-police-officers-break-cheekbone.html

The subject was handcuffed prior to the use of force.

 

[KYGlockster]

The absolutist opinions of some here are reprehensible. They paint all cops, including you, with the same broad brush.

Logic lesson: You cannot use examples to prove an absolute statement. However, one single counter-example disproves it.

You are absolutely right. And I must admit that for awhile I despised peace officers as well when I was younger. When I was sixteen my uncle and me were "felony" stopped for doing nothing but pulling into a parking-lot and out of the way of numerous code 3 vehicles coming our way. THEY were responding to a fight in a mall parking-lot across the street, but pulled in behind us instead. Keep in mind I was only sixteen, and I had no idea what I was doing. They went through the motions and had my uncle get out after removing the keys and so forth. Being as I was young and dumb I just got out of the van at the same time and when I came around the back of the van I had several firearms pointed at me with officers screaming several different commands. They pretty much forgot my uncle was there and focused strictly on me after I came around the back of the van. I was SIXTEEN and I looked much younger than that.

Eventually I was on the pavement with an officer's Glock touching the back of my head while I was 'cuffed. Their PC for the stop? Supposedly someone called dispatch and said that "someone" was bringing a gun to the fight at the mall in a brown van. How ironic, huh?

If I knew then what I do now I would have certainly sued them for numerous violations of the law and my rights. However, from this encounter I decided what I wanted to do in life, and that was to become an actual PEACE officer and help people, not harm them like I was harmed that day. I work with a lot of good people, but I also work with a few that I really just don't care for. I try my hardest to be courteous with them and I attempt every chance I can to educate them on matters of importance. One of my fellow employees will no longer talk to me because he BELIEVES I am "anti-cop," even though it is obvious I wouldn't be a peace officer if that were the case. It SHOULD be obvious that I am only anti-cop to those "cops" that refuse to uphold their oath to protect my rights and those of every other individual they come into contact with.

You are very right though; numerous posters on this forum like to lump all officers in the same category even though I am nothing like the officers that have done HORRIBLE things to people they are supposed to protect and serve.

 

[KYGlockster]

Tonight btw, had another perfect example of why talking to the police can sometimes help you substantially.

Woman calls to report a domestic violence assault by her ex-boyfriend. She has an injury and she tells a story that establishes probable cause. Since it is a DV assault w/injury, it is one of the few crimes in WA (DV assaults and order violations are the only two) that are MANDATORY arrests based on PC. MANDATORY.

Contact the boyfriend. He is able to show that she has been stalking him (has text messages etc.) and that she stalked him today, tried to assault HIM, and he acted in self defense. His GF was able to corroborate his story. Long story short, it went from a mandatory arrest, to an "info" case with no charges pending. All because he., as a suspect, did decide to talk to us. If he hadn't, it would have been a mandatory arrest. His statement was able to vitiate the PC. He was able to point to an incident his mother had reported, that I was able to look up but wouldn't have known about, where the stalking was mentioned. And his "story" made more sense than her story about how she got the injury. She actually tried to punch him as he sat in his car and he grabbed her arm and that's how she got her injury (she told an entirely different story), but his story made more sense, he had his gf to back him up and when we brought them to the scene together, we were able to basically get her to "crack" about the holes in her story. Again, PERFECT example. Now, if you are guilty as hell, there are very good reasons (usually) not to talk, and sometimes when you are innocent. But in many cases, such as in this case, if you have a vindictive RP who wants you arrested and is willing to lie to get it to happen, and you don't talk, you very well may go to jail for something you didn't do. Fortunately, this gentleman was able to calmly establish that his account was more credible than hers. His GF was actually a suspect too, in some way, but we seperated them and they gave consistent statements that were so in accord that they totally established it was more likely he was innocent than not.

This case will never GO to court. It will never BE a case. Whereas if he was arrested, it would be. That's why, if you only look at court cases, it skews the data (about the benefits of talking), because you invariably see tons of cases where talking hurt the person - since they were arrested. In cases like this, where it HELPED them, it doesn't BECOME a court case, so a lawyer etc. would never know about it in the first place. Selection bias kicks in if you only look at charged cases.

cheers!

You said DV assault is a mandatory arrest situation in your state. So why were you going to arrest the ex-boyfriend for assault, yet when you find out it was actually the female that committed the assault you were no longer interested in arresting the abusive party? You had witness statements and from the sounds of things pretty solid PC. You not only had her on assault charges, but you could have charged her with several other charges such as filing a false report and harassing communications.

Why were you willing to arrest the male but not the female who ended up being the actual aggressor and initiated the assault. Also, what makes a DV assault charge a mandatory arrest situation? In Kentucky we are authorized to use our discretion in such cases, however, if the State believes there is PC they can always issue a warrant for the arrest of the offending party as a crime against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.

 

[carolina guy]

You said DV assault is a mandatory arrest situation in your state. So why were you going to arrest the ex-boyfriend for assault, yet when you find out it was actually the female that committed the assault you were no longer interested in arresting the abusive party? You had witness statements and from the sounds of things pretty solid PC. You not only had her on assault charges, but you could have charged her with several other charges such as filing a false report and harassing communications.

Why were you willing to arrest the male but not the female who ended up being the actual aggressor and initiated the assault. Also, what makes a DV assault charge a mandatory arrest situation? In Kentucky we are authorized to use our discretion in such cases, however, if the State believes there is PC they can always issue a warrant for the arrest of the offending party as a crime against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth.

I was wondering the same. Why wasn't the ex-GF arrested for DV instead since there were corroborating statements that SHE was the aggressor? Sounds like the "mandatory arrest" isn't so mandatory if the RO can decide it wasn't DV...

This furthers the perceptions of bias in LE, IMO.

 

[OC for ME]

RCW 10.31.100 (2) A police officer shall arrest and take into custody, pending release on bail, personal recognizance, or court order, a person without a warrant when the officer has probable cause to believe that:....then a bunch of DV related RCWs are listed.

 

[DocWalker]

Tonight btw, had another perfect example of why talking to the police can sometimes help you substantially.

Woman calls to report a domestic violence assault by her ex-boyfriend. She has an injury and she tells a story that establishes probable cause. Since it is a DV assault w/injury, it is one of the few crimes in WA (DV assaults and order violations are the only two) that are MANDATORY arrests based on PC. MANDATORY.

Contact the boyfriend. He is able to show that she has been stalking him (has text messages etc.) and that she stalked him today, tried to assault HIM, and he acted in self defense. His GF was able to corroborate his story. Long story short, it went from a mandatory arrest, to an "info" case with no charges pending. All because he., as a suspect, did decide to talk to us. If he hadn't, it would have been a mandatory arrest. His statement was able to vitiate the PC. He was able to point to an incident his mother had reported, that I was able to look up but wouldn't have known about, where the stalking was mentioned. And his "story" made more sense than her story about how she got the injury. She actually tried to punch him as he sat in his car and he grabbed her arm and that's how she got her injury (she told an entirely different story), but his story made more sense, he had his gf to back him up and when we brought them to the scene together, we were able to basically get her to "crack" about the holes in her story. Again, PERFECT example. Now, if you are guilty as hell, there are very good reasons (usually) not to talk, and sometimes when you are innocent. But in many cases, such as in this case, if you have a vindictive RP who wants you arrested and is willing to lie to get it to happen, and you don't talk, you very well may go to jail for something you didn't do. Fortunately, this gentleman was able to calmly establish that his account was more credible than hers. His GF was actually a suspect too, in some way, but we seperated them and they gave consistent statements that were so in accord that they totally established it was more likely he was innocent than not.

This case will never GO to court. It will never BE a case. Whereas if he was arrested, it would be. That's why, if you only look at court cases, it skews the data (about the benefits of talking), because you invariably see tons of cases where talking hurt the person - since they were arrested. In cases like this, where it HELPED them, it doesn't BECOME a court case, so a lawyer etc. would never know about it in the first place. Selection bias kicks in if you only look at charged cases.

cheers!

Yes but did you go back and arrest her for making a false report and lying? Did you put anyone in handcuffs? One could also say and you point out that there are only two (not 100%) times you are required to arrest. The situation would be different if you were just going on your gut or didn't have PC or that a crime was or is being commited.

 

[DocWalker]

A unsubstantiated allegation (story) of DV provides PC and thus mandates the arrest of the accused. I do not know what to think about this. Why the accuser was not hauled off to jail for making a false claim to LE is absent from PALO's story.

If I am handcuffed as the result of a unsubstantiated allegation (MWAG) I would not be talking to that cop or any cop involved in blindly arresting me without first conducting a investigation as the lawfulness of the arrest or the validity of the allegation.

Anyway, we are here to discuss why a LE official firmly believes that the handcuffing of a citizen is, or is not, a arrest. It seems that the state of WA does not define arrest and thus provides PALO with the wiggle room to physically restrain a citizen via the use of handcuffs and not be held liable for that act.

Since Washington doesn't define "arrest" then we would have to go with the dictonary definition. To put it another way, if I'm detained, "arrested" by being put in cuffs according to the dictionary definition then I would be suing the pants of the department for wrongful arrest even if I wasn't booked and charged. I would take it to a jury tial and take great amussement of the state trying to make crap up and say that the common understanding and dictionary are wrong. I would love to hear them tell a jury not that they make up the rules and to disreguard everything else they know and hear as fact.

 

[marshaul]

You said DV assault is a mandatory arrest situation in your state. So why were you going to arrest the ex-boyfriend for assault, yet when you find out it was actually the female that committed the assault you were no longer interested in arresting the abusive party? You had witness statements and from the sounds of things pretty solid PC. You not only had her on assault charges, but you could have charged her with several other charges such as filing a false report and harassing communications.

You've done a pretty good job of proving that arrest can never be "mandatory". In the case of the Washington law in question, probable cause isn't a matter of fact. It's inherently subjective, and therefore depends on the judgement of the officer.

A stupid law without question.

I do agree though that PALO has admitted to being a criminal, however.

 

[Deanimator]

Tonight btw, had another perfect example of why talking to the police can sometimes help you substantially.

I'm sure there are documented instances where shooting heroin was [at least temporarily] beneficial.

I still don't plan to do it, no matter what an infinite number of drug dealers say.

I have no plans to talk to the police without benefit of counsel, regardless of what an infinite number of cops say.

 

[Tucker6900]

Tonight btw, had another perfect example of why talking to the police can sometimes help you substantially.

Woman calls to report a domestic violence assault by her ex-boyfriend. She has an injury and she tells a story that establishes probable cause. Since it is a DV assault w/injury, it is one of the few crimes in WA (DV assaults and order violations are the only two) that are MANDATORY arrests based on PC. MANDATORY.

Just making sure I understand and you are able to follow along. You say an arrest in this situation was mandatory...

Contact the boyfriend. He is able to show that she has been stalking him (has text messages etc.) and that she stalked him today, tried to assault HIM, and he acted in self defense. His GF was able to corroborate his story.

If he acted in self defense, that means she assaulted him. Wheres the mandatory arrest?

Long story short, it went from a mandatory arrest, to an "info" case with no charges pending.

I love how LEO's can change the rules as they play...

All because he., as a suspect, did decide to talk to us. If he hadn't, it would have been a mandatory arrest.

Dont you see the issue here? He was forced to give up his civil liberties to avoid a BS charge. Thats the crux in this whole mess.

Back on topic....

I will never be put in cuffs without going to jail after. If I am doing something that requires a call to police, then so be it. But when sheeple get scared and call the TIB to "save the day", and I am legal, then there will be no cuffs. And if there is, I will go to jail...Ill leave it at that and let your imagination take it from there.

 

[Citizen]

Tonight btw, had another perfect example of why talking to the police can sometimes help you substantially.

Woman calls to report a domestic violence assault by her ex-boyfriend. She has an injury and she tells a story that establishes probable cause. Since it is a DV assault w/injury, it is one of the few crimes in WA (DV assaults and order violations are the only two) that are MANDATORY arrests based on PC. MANDATORY.

Contact the boyfriend. He is able to show that she has been stalking him (has text messages etc.) and that she stalked him today, tried to assault HIM, and he acted in self defense. His GF was able to corroborate his story. Long story short, it went from a mandatory arrest, to an "info" case with no charges pending. All because he., as a suspect, did decide to talk to us. If he hadn't, it would have been a mandatory arrest. His statement was able to vitiate the PC. He was able to point to an incident his mother had reported, that I was able to look up but wouldn't have known about, where the stalking was mentioned. And his "story" made more sense than her story about how she got the injury. She actually tried to punch him as he sat in his car and he grabbed her arm and that's how she got her injury (she told an entirely different story), but his story made more sense, he had his gf to back him up and when we brought them to the scene together, we were able to basically get her to "crack" about the holes in her story. Again, PERFECT example. Now, if you are guilty as hell, there are very good reasons (usually) not to talk, and sometimes when you are innocent. But in many cases, such as in this case, if you have a vindictive RP who wants you arrested and is willing to lie to get it to happen, and you don't talk, you very well may go to jail for something you didn't do. Fortunately, this gentleman was able to calmly establish that his account was more credible than hers. His GF was actually a suspect too, in some way, but we seperated them and they gave consistent statements that were so in accord that they totally established it was more likely he was innocent than not.

This case will never GO to court. It will never BE a case. Whereas if he was arrested, it would be. That's why, if you only look at court cases, it skews the data (about the benefits of talking), because you invariably see tons of cases where talking hurt the person - since they were arrested. In cases like this, where it HELPED them, it doesn't BECOME a court case, so a lawyer etc. would never know about it in the first place. Selection bias kicks in if you only look at charged cases.

cheers!

When were you going to tell us how to determine when to talk to a cop?

Which exact sets of circumstances make it beneficial to talk to a cop?

How exactly do we tell whether the cop in front of us is actually going to use good judgement, pay close attention, and judge fairly, rather than just look for probable cause?

Hmmmmm? We're waiting.

 

[77zach]

You are very right though; numerous posters on this forum like to lump all officers in the same category even though I am nothing like the officers that have done HORRIBLE things to people they are supposed to protect and serve.

It's not that I hate ALL cops, just cops in general. As I've said before, I had a friend who was unable to complete the training because they wanted him to enforce all the laws of the state, including the stupid/immoral ones. Now if he had completed the training would things have turned out differently? Maybe.

I generally hate cops because they enforce the laws of the state, regardless if those laws are stupid or immoral. For example, if I were to openly carry a holstered handgun in my primary state of residence I can expect to be "protected and served" with a piece of payin' paper at best and handcuffs and a gun pointed at my head at worst. Traffic cops have robbed me of countless time. Almost universally, "speed limits" are anything but true safe speed limits. I drive at least 20 miles a day on a road that is posted 55 and should be 90. If I were to go 90 I can expect a $400 tax, in addition to having more of my time robbed. Here are just two examples of how my life is made worse by cops every day. Never once have I been directly or indirectly "served" by a cop proactively enforcing what the state is pleased to call the "law".

 

[bushwacker]

+1

makes you wonder if the people who choose their jobs over their ethics are the ones that will choose to sell their soul to the devil over losing their heads for heaven,god ,eternal life, 72 virgins or whatever belief you want to go with

 

[bushwacker]

handcuffs are to be used for officer safety. what qualifies as a threat to officer safety ? everything !!!!

ok so lets say that the officer wants to cuff you but states that you are not under arrest and then you decide that you are not going to allow him to cuff you . somehow I am thinking that you will be going to jail for resisting arrest ...don't know why I am thinking it but I picture a ride in a police car is in your near future , probably just my paranoia ,after all,you weren't under arrest to start with.
My question is . What is the most extreme messure they can legally go to put those cuffs on you if you are not under arrest?

 

[bushwacker]

It's not that I hate ALL cops, just cops in general. As I've said before, I had a friend who was unable to complete the training because they wanted him to enforce all the laws of the state, including the stupid/immoral ones. Now if he had completed the training would things have turned out differently? Maybe.

I generally hate cops because they enforce the laws of the state, regardless if those laws are stupid or immoral. For example, if I were to openly carry a holstered handgun in my primary state of residence I can expect to be "protected and served" with a piece of payin' paper at best and handcuffs and a gun pointed at my head at worst. Traffic cops have robbed me of countless time. Almost universally, "speed limits" are anything but true safe speed limits. I drive at least 20 miles a day on a road that is posted 55 and should be 90. If I were to go 90 I can expect a $400 tax, in addition to having more of my time robbed. Here are just two examples of how my life is made worse by cops every day. Never once have I been directly or indirectly "served" by a cop proactively enforcing what the state is pleased to call the "law".

they are there to protect and serve there is no if's, ands ,or buts about it. however, we can only speculate to whom it is that they protect and serve (seeing how you never see who written on their cars) so I would speculate the corporate government is the one, not so much the constitutional government or the citizen, who do you speculate it is?