• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Unknowingly walked into the aftermath or a bank robbery!

IYAOYAS

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Escondido, CA
Unknowingly walked into the aftermath of a bank robbery!

Went on my usual walk today. On the way I decided to stop and get a burger at McDonald's at the corner of College BLVD and Oceanside BLVD. I learned after this encounter with the OPD that a white male had just robbed the Chase Bank that is next to the McDonald's. So for this I think that I will let the fact that they did handcuff me briefly slide this time beings that I did fit the physical description of their suspect. However the officer did take out my mags and inspect them. All in all not too bad of an experience I have certainly seen much worse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkQ-pbDhfHE
 
Last edited:

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
Went on my usual walk today. On the way I decided to stop and get a burger at McDonald's at the corner of College BLVD and Oceanside BLVD. I learned after this encounter with the OPD that a white male had just robbed the Chase Bank that is next to the McDonald's. So for this I think that I will let the fact that they did handcuff me briefly slide this time beings that I did fit the physical description of their suspect. However the officer did take out my mags and inspect them. All in all not too bad of an experience I have certainly seen much worse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkQ-pbDhfHE

This is the first instance of the UOC check I have seen or read about where the citizen was handcuffed prior to the LEO checking the firearm. Is that allowed under the statute? Was it a case of the proximity of the bank robbery?

"...Not too bad of an experience?" WTF!
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
This is the first instance of the UOC check I have seen or read about where the citizen was handcuffed prior to the LEO checking the firearm. Is that allowed under the statute? Was it a case of the proximity of the bank robbery?

"...Not too bad of an experience?" WTF!

Lol, there are 100s of instances of cuffs going on during an e-check here in CA. Luckily, its getting much more rare.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Went on my usual walk today. On the way I decided to stop and get a burger at McDonald's at the corner of College BLVD and Oceanside BLVD. I learned after this encounter with the OPD that a white male had just robbed the Chase Bank that is next to the McDonald's. So for this I think that I will let the fact that they did handcuff me briefly slide this time beings that I did fit the physical description of their suspect. However the officer did take out my mags and inspect them. All in all not too bad of an experience I have certainly seen much worse!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkQ-pbDhfHE

Ugh. It's pretty clear from the video that this unlawful detainment had nothing to do with the bank robbery nearby. At no point was the bank robbery mentioned and you were free to go immediately after the unloaded status of the firearm was verified. You and your property were seized without reasonable suspicion and thus your fourth amendment rights were violated.

Now if the officer had initially said that you match the description of a bank robbery suspect so he is going to detain you in order to determine if you are the suspect, then he could handcuff you and verify the unloaded status of your firearm. He didn't do this though, so if the video captures the entirety of the interaction I would say this is an unconstitutional 12031(e) check (aside from the fact that 12031 is already unconstitutional). This PDF is somewhat instructive on the topic of handcuffing without arresting.
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
Now if the officer had initially said that you match the description of a bank robbery suspect so he is going to detain you in order to determine if you are the suspect, then he could handcuff you and verify the unloaded status of your firearm. He didn't do this though

There is no requirement that a LEO reveal RAS to a detainee; only that the LEO must have RAS in order to detain (Terry v. Ohio). The RAS would go in an arrest report.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
There is no requirement that a LEO reveal RAS to a detainee; only that the LEO must have RAS in order to detain (Terry v. Ohio). The RAS would go in an arrest report.

This is true, but based on the officers' behavior I sincerely doubt this stop had anything to do with the bank robbery. If it did then what did they accomplish by stopping the OP? No witnesses were brought to confirm or deny that the OP was the robber, no ID was checked, no questions were asked of the OP that could have developed probable cause that the OP had anything to do with the bank robbery.

That being said, I think the OP did a good job asserting his rights, remaining mostly silent, and asking for the police to identify themselves.
 

XDSTEEL

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
216
Location
North Dakota
Ugh. It's pretty clear from the video that this unlawful detainment had nothing to do with the bank robbery nearby. At no point was the bank robbery mentioned and you were free to go immediately after the unloaded status of the firearm was verified. You and your property were seized without reasonable suspicion and thus your fourth amendment rights were violated.

Now if the officer had initially said that you match the description of a bank robbery suspect so he is going to detain you in order to determine if you are the suspect, then he could handcuff you and verify the unloaded status of your firearm. He didn't do this though, so if the video captures the entirety of the interaction I would say this is an unconstitutional 12031(e) check (aside from the fact that 12031 is already unconstitutional). This PDF is somewhat instructive on the topic of handcuffing without arresting.

+10.. Really great link. Great information.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
Wow... sorry to hear your 4A rights were violated.

Next time you're cuffed or told you're being detained (Always ASK once those bracelets come out) ask for one of these:
06-19-2009-det-form.jpg

If you wish to pursue a case, these are monumental evidence that more than an "inspection" as proscribed by CA PC § 12031 (e) and an unlawful detainment occurred. If they get evasive about it, demand one. Always get the "detaining" LEOs' info.
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
BigToe and Demnogis are right.

This was a Terry hot stop, without RAS.

An illegal search and siezure occurred.

Delong, in part, states:

"But if the examination may be called a search, it is not an unreasonable one; and only unreasonable searches are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. 1868].) It is, as we have said, limited to a single purpose. It does not have about it any except the slightest element of embarrassment or annoyance, elements overbalanced by far by the purpose of preventing violence or threats of violence. The minimal intrusion does not begin to approach the indignity of the frisk, as graphically described in Terry v. Ohio, supra, at p. 17, fn. 13 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 903]. It is true that the frisk, as sustained in the Terry case, requires as justification something different than mere possession of a firearm in a proscribed place, but it requires a good deal less than cause for arrest."

If a frisk requires "a justification", what do hand cuffs require?

At the least, you must demand a Detention Certificate, it is your duty as an American!

I am not joking.

markm
 

Sons of Liberty

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
638
Location
Riverside, California, USA
I agree with BigToe. If the video captured the entire encounter, you were handcuffed and (e) checked. No questions with regard to robbery or determination as whether you were a suspect. Sorry that another LEO could care less about your freedoms and liberties, subjugated you to shackles of slavery, while he violated you.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
NOT in California. I live in Virginia where LOC is recognized as a right. I just had not seen anyone cuffed during an UOC check. Really seems excessive to me.

Yeah! To me too! :cool:

All kidding aside, this wasn't a good e-violation. Just because he was quick, doesn't mean he didn't violate you, the Constitution, and his Oath.

I especially liked the part where he said putting you in cuffs was for your safety! Spoken like a true tyrant.

And I too don't see how this plays into the nearby robbery. What the hell...there is a robber on the loose in the area, perhaps an armed and dangerous, violent robber, and so for your safety you're cuffed?! Seems to me they put your life in needless danger.
 
Top