• 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.

Aurora Colorado Police Department Widespread False Arrest SNAFU

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Article: Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber

Can anyone say "Unlawful Detainment & Arrest Lawsuit?"

I'm well-appraised of the laws here in the State of Colorado, and the Aurora police SNAFU'd this one, big time. No RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion), much less PC (probable cause).

On one hand, yes, it would be easier for the police if they could just lock down the block and interrogate everyone. This is not, however, North Korea. This is America, and our Fourth Amendment (and tons of associated case law) expressly forbids this type of police state behavior.

SOMEONE's going to loose their job, rank, or a promotion over this, and if any of these unlwafully-detained citizens sues Aurora, the city will loose tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So, how does this relate to handguns? What if you or I were open carrying and they stopped, disarmed, and handcuffed us? Would we be giving them permission to search our vehicle? Probably not. How badly would that escalate the situation? Would they throw us on the ground for good measure because they wrongly perceive a law-abiding citizen who is lawfully carrying a firearm as a threat? Now we'd have unlawful detention, arrest, brutality, AND a 4th Amendment rights violation (search/seizure) thrown in the mix.

The police claim everyone granted consent for their vehicles to be searched (stupid sheeple). Did the the stupid sheeple also grant consent to be unlawfully detained and arrested, as well?
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
Unbelievable !

"The RESULT of the whole DEAL (???)is that it PAID OFF . We have arrested and charged a suspect."

Well - actually the "RESULT" of this "DEAL" (fiasco) won't fully materialize until those 19 carloads of citizens finish suing the pants off of Aurora, CO.

What a truly revolutionary innovation in law enforcement tactics. Who would have thought that all the police had to do was stop, handcuff (temporary arrest), and intimidate citizens into surrendering their 4th Amendment right to be "secure" from unreasonable search & siezure.

In addition to trampling upon the rights of these citizens, scaring them half to death - probably at gun point - the police prevented them from reaching safety beyond what could very well have turned out to be the scene of a bloody shoot out with the bank robbery suspect(s).

Oh - I forgot. They made an arrest. Well, I guess that excuses "the deal".

This is the natural progression of the insidious judicial concept that once a citizen enters a motor vehicle they have "temporarily" surrendered their rights at the alter of "officer safety".

This one really needs to go all the way to the SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I wonder what would have happened had they a reputable report that one or more bank robbers with no particular description had managed to make it into the terminal of the Denver International Airport. Would they have detained the thousands of people in the airport with the same non-suspicion?
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
I think that, any consent given should be thrown out. It says they gave consent, but doesn't bother mentioning exactly how they got that consent.

Since this was police raid looking for an armed bank robber, I imagine the officers had their sidearms drawn. Now imagine you're driving down the road, minding your own business, when suddenly you and 20 other cars are stopped by dozens of officers at gunpoint and arrested. I doubt most people would have the frame of mind to realize they have a right to say no. They were probably scared out of their minds and their rights were being trampled as it was. What choice did they really have?

Yes yes, most of us would have said no. But I wouldn't exactly consider us the average citizen.
 

gobbly

Regular Member
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
75
Location
Utah
I don't even know what to say. I am so saddened lately by the blatant disregard for the rule of law, and our constitutional rights.

Sadly, assuming they actually found the perpetrators (which the article does not indicate they did), they will either get off either way. I'd be surprised if it even makes it to appeal.

I could also imagine this bankrupting the city.
 
Last edited:

mtlhdtodd

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
123
Location
Federal Way, Wa
I wonder what would have happened if some one was legally carrying open or concealed and told the cops to screw themselves on the search. My guess is it would not have been pretty. I hope there are lawsuits over this blatant violation of the constitution. :banghead::cuss::banghead:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
Shut up & Drink up

Click on Pic,,,:arrow:; View attachment 8569

Ok Everyone, repeat after me,,,

IT'S ONLY KOOL-AID, IT IS GOOD FOR ME, MY MAMA WOULDN'T LIE :exclaim::question:

:monkey Trust me, I know what I'm doing,,,:banghead:

PEACE & RKBA 4EVER !!! :cool:
 
Last edited:

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
So let me get this straight...

Police take a huge steaming dump on the Fundamental Constitutional Rights of 19 carloads of law-abiding citizens, so that they could apprehend someone who had allegedly robbed a bank?

OK, I guess we know who the Aurora Police REALLY work for--and it sure as heck ain't the People...
 
Last edited:

scott58dh

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
425
Location
why?
How many more Mr. Speaker

So let me get this straight...

Police take a huge steaming dump on the Fundamental Constitutional Rights of 19 carloads of law-abiding citizens, so that they could apprehend someone who had allegedly robbed a bank?

OK, I guess we know who the Aurora Police REALLY work for--and it sure as heck ain't the People...

When will the time come that the NATO Blue Hats show up to ***assist*** our fine men/women in blue ?

Can anyone say,,, NEW WORLD ORDER ?!?!?

My guess is that we'll see it in our lifetime,,, just watch if Obama gets re-elected, then we'll really see things get fired up !

Peace & RKBA 4EVER ! :cool:
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Eugene Volokh weighs in: http://volokh.com/2012/06/05/police...at-intersection-handcuff-drivers-search-cars/

I’m not a Fourth Amendment expert, but I’m pretty sure this is unconstitutional.

Now Mr. Volokh may not be a 4A expert but he and his horde of advisors/consultants and general readership had a special party dealing with this incident. I'm just guessing out loud, but there might be some high-priced attorneys lining up to do some pro bono representation just for the ensuing lulz.

stay safe.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I think that, any consent given should be thrown out. It says they gave consent, but doesn't bother mentioning exactly how they got that consent.

Since this was police raid looking for an armed bank robber, I imagine the officers had their sidearms drawn. Now imagine you're driving down the road, minding your own business, when suddenly you and 20 other cars are stopped by dozens of officers at gunpoint and arrested. I doubt most people would have the frame of mind to realize they have a right to say no. They were probably scared out of their minds and their rights were being trampled as it was. What choice did they really have?

Yes yes, most of us would have said no. But I wouldn't exactly consider us the average citizen.

Sadly, if you post a link to this event on other topical websites, you'll quickly find out that a fair amount, if not most, of the posters favor the police in their actions. Just more proof of how dumbing down several generations of Americans by not teaching them the Original Intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has worked.
 

Bowesmobile

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
204
Location
Powhatan, Va

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Here's a likely scenario:

Me: "What's the situation, officer?"

Officer: "We're looking for a bank robbery suspect who's thought to be in the immediate area. He's considered armed and dangerous. We need you to get out, disarm, and allow yourself to be handcuffed."

Me: "Really! Since he's nearby as well as armed and dangerous, I've got a better idea. I'm going to take myself out of both his and your way, and I'll maintain my self-defense posture, too."
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Here's a likely scenario:

Me: "What's the situation, officer?"

Officer: "We're looking for a bank robbery suspect who's thought to be in the immediate area. He's considered armed and dangerous. We need you to get out, disarm, and allow yourself to be handcuffed."

Me: "Really! Since he's nearby as well as armed and dangerous, I've got a better idea. I'm going to take myself out of both his and your way, and I'll maintain my self-defense posture, too."
I'd love to see you say that in a situation where the police have already demonstrated a complete disregard for your rights as a human and citizen all the while staring down the barrel of two dozen guns held by those same officers.
 

FTG-05

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
441
Location
TN
I think that, any consent given should be thrown out. It says they gave consent, but doesn't bother mentioning exactly how they got that consent.

Since this was police raid looking for an armed bank robber, I imagine the officers had their sidearms drawn. Now imagine you're driving down the road, minding your own business, when suddenly you and 20 other cars are stopped by dozens of officers at gunpoint and arrested. I doubt most people would have the frame of mind to realize they have a right to say no. They were probably scared out of their minds and their rights were being trampled as it was. What choice did they really have?

Yes yes, most of us would have said no. But I wouldn't exactly consider us the average citizen.

You imagine wrong, see the picture linked below.

And here's how they got their consent:

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

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
That really does not change what I said, only reinforces it. :confused:

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
 

bowb

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
58
Location
Idaho
Top