As evidenced by posts here and elsewhere, a substantial # of people believe that police must have probable cause of an arrestable offense to place somebody in handcuffs, and that when somebody is placed in handcuffs that means the person is under "custodial" arrest, iow it;s more than just a detention.
Both beliefs are wrong. If you do get handcuffed, whether open carrying or not, the officer must have justifiable articulable grounds to handcuff you. All seizures must be "reasonable" under the 4th and many state constitutions have even stricter standards. Handcuffs are strongly SUGGESTIVE of arrest, but are not dispositive of same. Personally, the most common occurrence where I have had to handcuff a person in a nonarrest situation is dealing with a violent suicidal EDP. In those cases, many of these EDPs are armed with knives or guns and/or have used same to attempt suicide. I had a case with a guy who had a gun to his head - no crime - and I was able to talk him into droipping it. Obviously, he gets handcuffed under the community caretaking function to protect him, me, and passersby. Once the ambulance arrived, he got 4 pt restraints from the ambulance personnel of course.
There is massive body of case law supporting non-arrest handcuffing. I'm citing a few of those cases. For those who think it'so prudent to resist what they ebelieve to be a false arrest, recognize that handcuffing does not necessarily mean = ARREST
Gallegos v. City of Colorado Springs
"A Terry stop does not automatically elevate into an arrest where police officers use handcuffs on a suspect or place him on the ground. Police officers are authorized to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of a Terry stop."
People of California v. Osborne
United States v. Stewart
All cases where handcuffing during an investigative detention was reasonable.
In re Carlos M. 220 CA3 372,385 (1990)
“The fact that a defendant is handcuffed while being detained does not, by itself, transform a detention into an arrest.”
United States v. Acosta-Colon
"Officers engaged in an otherwise lawful stop must be permitted to take measures—including the use of handcuffs—they believe reasonably necessary to protect themselves from harm, or to safeguard the security of others."
Haynie v. County of Los Angeles
"A brief, although complete, restriction of liberty, such as handcuffing, during a Terry stop is not a de facto arrest, if not excessive under the circumstances.”
US v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002)
The allowable scope of an investigative detention cannot be determined by reference to a bright-line rule; "common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria."
United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221 (1985)
When police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion
...
Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of [a Terry] stop.
United States v. Maguire
The use of handcuffs to address legitimate officer safety concerns during a Terry stop or investigative detention does not transform that detention into an arrest
Bruzy and Riordan v. Trooper Joyner, et. al.
Troopers received a report of a possible gunshot fired from a vehicle. The vehicle was the subject of a high risk stop and the occupant (Bruzy) was handcuffed. Her fiance, Riordan, was traveling in a separate vehicle and stopped ahead of the scene. He was also detained and handcuffed, despite not being party to the original complaint. They filed a lawsuit and the court ruled that the detention and handcuffing were lawful measures taken in response to reasonable, articulable suspicion, and no "full blown arrest" occurred.
http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions...JS.Riordan.pdf
and etc.
cheers!
Both beliefs are wrong. If you do get handcuffed, whether open carrying or not, the officer must have justifiable articulable grounds to handcuff you. All seizures must be "reasonable" under the 4th and many state constitutions have even stricter standards. Handcuffs are strongly SUGGESTIVE of arrest, but are not dispositive of same. Personally, the most common occurrence where I have had to handcuff a person in a nonarrest situation is dealing with a violent suicidal EDP. In those cases, many of these EDPs are armed with knives or guns and/or have used same to attempt suicide. I had a case with a guy who had a gun to his head - no crime - and I was able to talk him into droipping it. Obviously, he gets handcuffed under the community caretaking function to protect him, me, and passersby. Once the ambulance arrived, he got 4 pt restraints from the ambulance personnel of course.
There is massive body of case law supporting non-arrest handcuffing. I'm citing a few of those cases. For those who think it'so prudent to resist what they ebelieve to be a false arrest, recognize that handcuffing does not necessarily mean = ARREST
Gallegos v. City of Colorado Springs
"A Terry stop does not automatically elevate into an arrest where police officers use handcuffs on a suspect or place him on the ground. Police officers are authorized to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of a Terry stop."
People of California v. Osborne
United States v. Stewart
All cases where handcuffing during an investigative detention was reasonable.
In re Carlos M. 220 CA3 372,385 (1990)
“The fact that a defendant is handcuffed while being detained does not, by itself, transform a detention into an arrest.”
United States v. Acosta-Colon
"Officers engaged in an otherwise lawful stop must be permitted to take measures—including the use of handcuffs—they believe reasonably necessary to protect themselves from harm, or to safeguard the security of others."
Haynie v. County of Los Angeles
"A brief, although complete, restriction of liberty, such as handcuffing, during a Terry stop is not a de facto arrest, if not excessive under the circumstances.”
US v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002)
The allowable scope of an investigative detention cannot be determined by reference to a bright-line rule; "common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria."
United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221 (1985)
When police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion
...
Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of [a Terry] stop.
United States v. Maguire
The use of handcuffs to address legitimate officer safety concerns during a Terry stop or investigative detention does not transform that detention into an arrest
Bruzy and Riordan v. Trooper Joyner, et. al.
Troopers received a report of a possible gunshot fired from a vehicle. The vehicle was the subject of a high risk stop and the occupant (Bruzy) was handcuffed. Her fiance, Riordan, was traveling in a separate vehicle and stopped ahead of the scene. He was also detained and handcuffed, despite not being party to the original complaint. They filed a lawsuit and the court ruled that the detention and handcuffing were lawful measures taken in response to reasonable, articulable suspicion, and no "full blown arrest" occurred.
http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions...JS.Riordan.pdf
and etc.
cheers!
