Cue-Ball wrote:
I think that there are just a few questionable actions here that are separating the "well handled" and "violation of my rights" people. Personally, I think I fall in-between, but am leaning towards the latter.
So, let's assume for a moment that the OP matches the description of the bank robber to a T. He's the right color, height, weight, wearing the right clothes, and driving the right car. If all that is true, why would the officer need to run the serial number on his gun? Why would the officer need to run his name through the computer? Surely the bank teller didn't look at the serial number on the suspect's gun or the name on his driver's license.
In my view, this should have been pretty straight forward. They stop someone who they think is a bank robber. They either positively identify him (by eye witness or evidence linking the person to the crime) or they let him go. While I do think the cops were doing their job by stopping someone who matches the description, I think they crossed the line by running all of this information that cannot possibly be linked to the alleged crime. If we allow the police the latitude to run plates, driver's licenses, gun serial numbers, CCW permit numbers, etc. which are completely unrelated to the stop, what's to prevent me from having anyone's rights violated by simply calling in an anonymous call?
I don't think anyone wants the police to not do their job, or to have a hard time doing their job, but I do think that there is a certain amount of information that is necessary and prudent to doing that job, and that going beyond that is a violation of a person's basic right to security and privacy.
Being that he was detained (Terry stop) the Police had a legal right to obtain the requested info. His car was stopped so the plate was ran (Registered to him, or stolen?), he was contacted and his name checked (warrants, valid license,or prior history of robbery?), A gun was used in the crime so his was checked (stolen?).
These are s.o.p. for a stop of this nature, and in this case helped clear him of any involvement quicker. Also, had the real bg not been located, the Police may have wanted to speak to him again about this later,and having his info is the only way this could happen.
Even though he was not the "right guy", he was still legally detained, and would be guilty of obstruction if he failed to provide basic info. There was no "fishing" going on here, they simply wanted to clear him, as it sounds like they were not very convinced he was the right guy from the start.
Let's say (hypothetically) that the Police had done as you said. They don't id him, check his gun, or his plates. He says "I'm not your man", but they aren't convinced. Should they just take his word for it? Hell no, they would then have to get a witness over to the scene to see if he could be positively identified. This takes some time, and causes him to be deprived of his freedom for far longer than is necessary. It also keeps several Officers tied up while all this is going on.
The info he provided was used toward the "totality of the circumstances", and everything lined up and he was quickly cleared. He had nothing to hide, so why would he object? Refusing to provide info only heightens the Officer's suspicions. His actions, demeanor, and willingness to cooperate went a long way towards getting him cut loose quickly.
