Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-05-2019, 06:19 PM
memeingtrillions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10

Constitutional rights violations and crimes committed when spotted by the gang unit


Hypothetical scenario: You are jaywalking in Denver and the police pull up behind you. You are quickly cuffed without warning but are not under arrest. The police make idle conversation and jokes with you for about 20 minutes before a detox van quietly parks a few feet behind you, and you are walked into it without any warning. You don't want to be in the van and so you exit it and are pinned to the ground (where you are injured) and put into an ambulance instead where you are quickly sedated via IV. You wake up chained to a hospital bed in a dark room, not sure how you got there. Eventually someone comes in and informs you that you are now under arrest for obstruction and you are taken to jail for more than half a day even though you posted bond so they can run your prints, even though you have ID. The FBI's RapBack database automatically informs your employer of your arrest and you are fired. Since you lost your job, you can no longer afford rent and you are now homeless as well. You do not want to accept a plea because you believe you are innocent, so you must pay a lawyer almost all of your money, or accept the public defender. You go to trial and are found guilty, meaning finding work in your engineering field will be much more difficult. The prospect of appealing is daunting, as it will seemingly take years, meanwhile your life goes further and further down the toilet.

After the incident you speak with the paramedic who sedated you and they inform you that they have a working relationship with the police and essentially have to trust their determination that someone should be taken to the hospital. They sedate you for everyone's safety as a matter of practice.

How many rights were violated and crimes committed?
  • Liberty / freedom of movement: Public intoxication is not a crime in CO and you were not charged with jaywalking or anything other than objecting to the restriction of your liberty by being forced into a van without explanation
  • Liberty: Being detained in handcuffs and told you are not free to leave while not being under arrest and without being told that the police plan to send you to detox
  • Excessive force: The gang unit treated you like a gang banger when you are a working professional
  • Excessive force: Instead of warning you and asking if you'd like a ride home or a taxi, or putting you in the back of the cruiser and taking you to detox, or telling you that you're going to detox and putting you in the detox van, they push you into the detox van and arrest you when you object.
  • Excessive force: A takedown by four officers who typically do takedowns on gangbangers, and who injure you.
  • Unlawful detainment: How did you go from crossing the street to waking up chained to a hospital bed to spending a day in jail?
  • Due process: Because you were not told why you were being detained, you could not argue about the actions being taken against you. They don't tell you that you are going to detox because it sometimes irritates people.
  • Conspiracy: The police and paramedics do joint trainings and have a working relationship and know that this is a regular outcome of police procedure, and that the procedure is there so that the police don't have to personally shuttle people around, call them taxis, etc.
  • Speech: Public intoxication is not illegal, and slurred speech is still free speech
  • Humiliation (Geneva): While in jail you have to poop in a room with another man and with other inmates walking by and looking at you.
  • Cruel and unusual punishment: Is it not? Even if not unusual, how is it not cruel?
  • Innocent until proven guilty: You are being severely punished despite not having been found guilty.
  • Liberty (right to travel): Your bond stipulates you may not leave your state.

What other rights violations do you see?

Do you think that the state has the right to violate all of these rights in order to balance having to provide them for others?
  #2  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:28 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Is this based on an actual incident?
  #3  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:39 PM
l0k1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 249
Is this home work for law school?
  #4  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:44 PM
memeingtrillions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0k1 View Post
Is this home work for law school?
More like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZD4ezDbbu4
  #5  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:50 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
How about a serious response instead of a You Tube link to a Springsteen song?
  #6  
Old 01-05-2019, 08:56 PM
memeingtrillions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
It's a hypothetical based in part on aggregate statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics website.
  #7  
Old 01-05-2019, 09:10 PM
DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 14,411
memeingtrillions, I might suggest that you spend some time learning basic Constitutional Criminal Procedure law. A number of the suggested rights violations are not rights violations under current Constitutional Law, as a quick review would show (for example, your comments about "cruel and unusual punishment").
  #8  
Old 01-06-2019, 09:32 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
IANAL. I will post what I think, and a real lawyer will correct me where necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeingtrillions View Post
Hypothetical scenario: You are jaywalking in Denver and the police pull up behind you. You are quickly cuffed without warning but are not under arrest.
I think this is what is called a Terry stop. You are not under arrest, but you are not free to go. You do not have to answer any questions beyond identifying information. The police are free to ask you questions and use your answers against you.
Quote:
The police make idle conversation and jokes with you for about 20 minutes before a detox van quietly parks a few feet behind you, and you are walked into it without any warning.
20 minutes is probably nearing the outside limit of detention for a Terry stop, which is supposed to be "brief". "Brief" is not clearly defined. Nonetheless, at this point you are under arrest. The police do not have to say "you are under arrest", because putting you into the van communicates it clearly enough.
Quote:
You don't want to be in the van and so you exit it and are pinned to the ground (where you are injured)…
This is resisting arrest/escaping from custody/obstruction of justice. None of your rights have been violated so far. You do not have the right to leave - you are under arrest.
Quote:
...and put into an ambulance instead where you are quickly sedated via IV. You wake up chained to a hospital bed in a dark room, not sure how you got there.
You might have cause of action against the hospital for sedating you without your consent, depending on the circumstances and what you can show.
Quote:
Eventually someone comes in and informs you that you are now under arrest for obstruction and you are taken to jail for more than half a day even though you posted bond so they can run your prints, even though you have ID.
If you posted bond, you must have appeared before a judge. Posting bond has nothing to do with whether or not you have ID.
Quote:
The FBI's RapBack database automatically informs your employer of your arrest and you are fired. Since you lost your job, you can no longer afford rent and you are now homeless as well. You do not want to accept a plea because you believe you are innocent, so you must pay a lawyer almost all of your money, or accept the public defender. You go to trial and are found guilty, meaning finding work in your engineering field will be much more difficult. The prospect of appealing is daunting, as it will seemingly take years, meanwhile your life goes further and further down the toilet.
I don't see any violations of your rights in any of the above.
Quote:
After the incident you speak with the paramedic who sedated you and they inform you that they have a working relationship with the police and essentially have to trust their determination that someone should be taken to the hospital. They sedate you for everyone's safety as a matter of practice.
Again, it depends on what you can prove. Sedating everyone might be a malpractice suit.
My additions in bold.
Quote:
How many rights were violated and crimes committed?
  • Liberty / freedom of movement: Public intoxication is not a crime in CO and you were not charged with jaywalking or anything other than objecting to the restriction of your liberty by being forced into a van without explanation
    You were charged with obstruction. You don't get to object to being arrested by trying to escape.
  • Liberty: Being detained in handcuffs and told you are not free to leave while not being under arrest and without being told that the police plan to send you to detox
    Also not a violation. A Terry stop, as mentioned above. The police are under no obligation to warn you that you are headed for detox.
  • Excessive force: The gang unit treated you like a gang banger when you are a working professional
  • Excessive force: Instead of warning you and asking if you'd like a ride home or a taxi, or putting you in the back of the cruiser and taking you to detox, or telling you that you're going to detox and putting you in the detox van, they push you into the detox van and arrest you when you object.
  • Excessive force: A takedown by four officers who typically do takedowns on gangbangers, and who injure you.

    None of these constitute excessive force AFAICT.
  • Unlawful detainment: How did you go from crossing the street to waking up chained to a hospital bed to spending a day in jail?
    By jaywalking, and resisting arrest.
  • Due process: Because you were not told why you were being detained, you could not argue about the actions being taken against you. They don't tell you that you are going to detox because it sometimes irritates people.
    Again, no violation of due process. You don't argue an arrest with the cops, you argue it with the judge.
  • Conspiracy: The police and paramedics do joint trainings and have a working relationship and know that this is a regular outcome of police procedure, and that the procedure is there so that the police don't have to personally shuttle people around, call them taxis, etc.
    This isn't conspiracy.
  • Speech: Public intoxication is not illegal, and slurred speech is still free speech
    Irrelevant.
  • Humiliation (Geneva): While in jail you have to poop in a room with another man and with other inmates walking by and looking at you.
    Also irrelevant. Jail is uncomfortable. Deal with it.
  • Cruel and unusual punishment: Is it not? Even if not unusual, how is it not cruel?
  • Innocent until proven guilty: You are being severely punished despite not having been found guilty.
    Also not applicable. You said "You go to trial and are found guilty".
  • Liberty (right to travel): Your bond stipulates you may not leave your state.
Tough.
Regards,
Shodan
  #9  
Old 01-06-2019, 01:34 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think this is what is called a Terry stop. You are not under arrest, but you are not free to go. You do not have to answer any questions beyond identifying information. The police are free to ask you questions and use your answers against you.
20 minutes is probably nearing the outside limit of detention for a Terry stop, which is supposed to be "brief". "Brief" is not clearly defined. Nonetheless, at this point you are under arrest. The police do not have to say "you are under arrest", because putting you into the van communicates it clearly enough.
I don't see where placing someone in a van conveys a person is under arrest any more than it conveys a miranda rights briefing.

I'm not sure what a "detox van" is but if it's transportation for someone who is incapacitate then at that point they would have to be formally charged with a crime. You can't just haul people away without cause.
  #10  
Old 01-06-2019, 05:29 PM
memeingtrillions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
I don't think that being taken to detox constitutes being placed under arrest. When you are in detox you can ask them if you are under arrest and they will say no. They will also say you are not free to leave until your BAC reaches a certain threshold.
  #11  
Old 01-06-2019, 06:11 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeingtrillions View Post
Hypothetical scenario: You are jaywalking
Summary execution. Next case!
  #12  
Old 01-06-2019, 08:12 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeingtrillions View Post
I don't think that being taken to detox constitutes being placed under arrest. When you are in detox you can ask them if you are under arrest and they will say no. They will also say you are not free to leave until your BAC reaches a certain threshold.
If you're not free to leave then that fits the definition of arrest: An arrest is using legal authority to deprive a person of his or her freedom of movement.
  #13  
Old 01-07-2019, 12:04 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
If you're not free to leave then that fits the definition of arrest: An arrest is using legal authority to deprive a person of his or her freedom of movement.
That's not accurate. Arrest has a specific definition. Not being free to leave is not sufficient to meet the definition of arrest. For example, a person can be detained without being placed under arrest, and in the case of detainment, they are not free to leave. Your previous post where you indicated if someone was taken via a detox van then they have to be formally charged - that's not true either. A person can be detained, arrested, removed in a detox van, with no formal charges being filed. Not all arrests lead to charges. Not all detainments lead to arrests.
  #14  
Old 01-07-2019, 01:01 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
I'm not sure what a "detox van" is but if it's transportation for someone who is incapacitate then at that point they would have to be formally charged with a crime. You can't just haul people away without cause.
As I understand it, police don't have to tell the person what he's being arrested for at the time of arrest. I think that idea came from movies and TV. It's the DA who determines what the charges will be (if any), and it can take some time. In felony cases, the accused is formally charged with the crime at the arraignment.
  #15  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:08 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeingtrillions View Post
I don't think that being taken to detox constitutes being placed under arrest. When you are in detox you can ask them if you are under arrest and they will say no. They will also say you are not free to leave until your BAC reaches a certain threshold.
This can fall under a States mental health code laws. If you are so intoxicated you are a danger to yourself you may be held up to (in most places ) 72 hours without being under arrest. Also, after a mandated amount of time, there has to be a hearing to determine if you still can be held.

This is just a generalization and YMMV like crazy depending on what state you are in.

ETA: I’ve had people who were too intoxicated for the detox center. Got turned away and had to take them to the hospital as their BAC was in the lethal zone.

Last edited by pkbites; 01-07-2019 at 02:10 AM.
  #16  
Old 01-07-2019, 02:21 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If you posted bond, you must have appeared before a judge.

Not necessarily. Most charges have a specific bond amount. A person can post that amount and be on their way without ever seeing a judge.

Most of our arrests are processed at our departments booking room. Folks usually have about 2 hours to post bond before they go into the van down to the county jail facility. Once you are at CJF you’ll sit on your ass for at least 6 -8 hours even if someone came and posted for you. It takes that long for their paper work to process.
  #17  
Old 01-07-2019, 04:52 AM
Aspidistra is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 5,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
That's not accurate. Arrest has a specific definition. Not being free to leave is not sufficient to meet the definition of arrest. For example, a person can be detained without being placed under arrest, and in the case of detainment, they are not free to leave. Your previous post where you indicated if someone was taken via a detox van then they have to be formally charged - that's not true either. A person can be detained, arrested, removed in a detox van, with no formal charges being filed. Not all arrests lead to charges. Not all detainments lead to arrests.
Surely someone in handcuffs is under arrest though?

(Not to mention - fighting the hypothetical - attempting to leave with handcuffs on you seems like a very dumb idea. How are you planning to get them off?)
__________________
Science created the modern world. Politics is doing its best to destroy it.
  #18  
Old 01-07-2019, 06:55 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspidistra View Post
Surely someone in handcuffs is under arrest though?
Not necessarily.
Quote:
Courts consider a variety of factors in determining whether a detention has ripened into an arrest, among them:

•the amount of force the police used
•the need for use of force
•the number of officers involved
•whether officers suspected the suspect of being armed
•the manner in which officers physically handled the suspect (including the use of handcuffs), and
•the length of the stop.

(U.S. v. Vargas, 369 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2004), In re Hoch, 82 A.3d 1167 (Vt. 2013).)

Although the extent to which officers restrain and intrude upon the suspect are key to the determination, there’s no bright line indicating the point at which a detention becomes an arrest. For instance, the use of handcuffs doesn’t automatically signal an arrest where there are concerns for officer or public safety.
Cite.

Again, IANAL, but ISTM being cuffed and put into the back of a van to be transported to detox, or to the station, crosses the line from being detained into being under arrest, especially if they tackle you when you try to get away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver
I don't see where placing someone in a van conveys a person is under arrest any more than it conveys a miranda rights briefing.
It doesn't convey a Miranda briefing, that is true. But, again in my non-lawyerly opinion, being handcuffed and put into the back of a van ripens the situation from a detention into an arrest. And the cops don't have to Mirandize you unless they want to ask questions.
Quote:
I'm not sure what a "detox van" is but if it's transportation for someone who is incapacitate then at that point they would have to be formally charged with a crime. You can't just haul people away without cause.
According to the OP. he was stopped for jaywalking. Much depends on the circumstances, but presumably the cops were going to haul him off to detox for being a danger to himself or others, and then he resisted arrest, so that was what he was charged with. The OP is correct, I believe, that public intoxication is not against the law in Colorado, but you can still be arrested for other crimes committed while drunk in public (cite) which would include resisting arrest.

The only grounds for action that I can see is the involuntary sedation, and that would be against the tech who sedated him and/or the hospital to which he was admitted. Of course, I have been told that, when in doubt, sue everybody, so no doubt the police department would be included eventually.

Automatically sedating someone who is already drunk is dangerous business, so, not to fight the hypothetical, but I would question if "every drunk who comes in gets a shot of Valium by default" is policy anywhere.

Regards,
Shodan
  #19  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:43 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,571
What became of this Denver C.A.R.E.S. case? If it went through a trial, the decision might address the OP's questions. https://localtvkdvr.files.wordpress..../12/1-main.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-2915
MICHAEL CORNELL and
LAUREN RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DENVER C.A.R.E.S., a behavioral health facility operated by Denver Health Medical
Center/Denver Health and Hospital Authority,
DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT,
ROBERT C. WHITE, Denver Police Chief,
JOHN DOES #1 AND #2, officers of the Denver Police Department,
BILL BURMAN, M.D., Chief Executive Officer, Denver Health Medical Center,
NICOLE MCLEAN,
FIRST NAME UNK. PORTILLO,
RENE MISELA,
AVA WALSTON,
Defendants.

Last edited by Muffin; 01-07-2019 at 07:45 AM.
  #20  
Old 01-07-2019, 08:31 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The only grounds for action that I can see is the involuntary sedation
I’m skeptical about an intoxicated person being sedated.

Most medical professionals I’ve dealt with won’t sedate someone intoxicated on an unknown substance. And they usually don’t in the case of high BAC. Even in cases of excited delirium they are very cautious about sedatives.
  #21  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:01 AM
memeingtrillions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I’m skeptical about an intoxicated person being sedated.

Most medical professionals I’ve dealt with won’t sedate someone intoxicated on an unknown substance. And they usually don’t in the case of high BAC. Even in cases of excited delirium they are very cautious about sedatives.
According to various documentation online this is due to joint trainings resulting in a working relationship with the goal of ensuring safety. Officers don't say you are going to detox because that agitates people which leads to unsafe situations. If you end up inside an ambulance instead of going to detox you are sedated because you will probably be agitated and could hurt yourself or the paramedic.

Thus, we have the situation where for jaywalking you end up in what might otherwise look like a kidnapping / alien abduction situation: someone walks up behind you, puts you in handcuffs, forces you into a van, you fight, so they sedate you and you wake up in a dark room chained to a bed.

All 100% legal, proceduralized and commonplace.
  #22  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:13 AM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,202
No one sedates people preemptively. That's what restraints are for. Sedating some random person arrested when you don't know if they are on anything is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Probably due to the death of the person.
  #23  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:19 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeingtrillions View Post
According to various documentation online this is due to joint trainings resulting in a working relationship with the goal of ensuring safety. Officers don't say you are going to detox because that agitates people which leads to unsafe situations. If you end up inside an ambulance instead of going to detox you are sedated because you will probably be agitated and could hurt yourself or the paramedic.

Thus, we have the situation where for jaywalking you end up in what might otherwise look like a kidnapping / alien abduction situation: someone walks up behind you, puts you in handcuffs, forces you into a van, you fight, so they sedate you and you wake up in a dark room chained to a bed.

All 100% legal, proceduralized and commonplace.
I'm gonna need a cite that this is commonplace and a matter of procedure.

Regards,
Shodan
  #24  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:25 AM
memeingtrillions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I'm gonna need a cite that this is commonplace and a matter of procedure.

Regards,
Shodan
I am not sure where to get the cite but am working on it. That granularity of statistic doesn't seem to be published AFAICT.

If you decline to go to detox, you get an ambulance instead. Since you are agitated and distressed (declined to go to detox) they sedate you for everyone's safety.
  #25  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:56 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
I work in IT, but the building in which I used to work was upstairs from the adolescent involuntary detox center. Occasionally I saw some drugged-out, very agitated teenagers being brought in. AFAICT none of them had been sedated. And a colleague used to work in that center (he used to be a chem-dep counselor before he became a programmer). As Just Asking Questions mentions, that's what the four-point restraint room is for.

Alcohol and other CNS depressants interact and reinforce many common sedative drugs. Routinely administering such drugs, without a doctor seeing the patient first, is going to result in a lot of overdoses.

I'll certainly look at any cites you can find, but I find it hard to believe that anybody is going to just start slamming barbiturates into every drunk they find, no matter what their working relationship is with the police. Muffin's Denver C.A.R.E.S. case notwithstanding, which AFAICT is about them being arrested, not sedated.

Regards,
Shodan
  #26  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:03 AM
memeingtrillions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I work in IT, but the building in which I used to work was upstairs from the adolescent involuntary detox center. Occasionally I saw some drugged-out, very agitated teenagers being brought in. AFAICT none of them had been sedated. And a colleague used to work in that center (he used to be a chem-dep counselor before he became a programmer). As Just Asking Questions mentions, that's what the four-point restraint room is for.

Alcohol and other CNS depressants interact and reinforce many common sedative drugs. Routinely administering such drugs, without a doctor seeing the patient first, is going to result in a lot of overdoses.

I'll certainly look at any cites you can find, but I find it hard to believe that anybody is going to just start slamming barbiturates into every drunk they find, no matter what their working relationship is with the police. Muffin's Denver C.A.R.E.S. case notwithstanding, which AFAICT is about them being arrested, not sedated.

Regards,
Shodan
Midazolam
  #27  
Old 01-07-2019, 11:51 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeingtrillions View Post
Midazolam
Which is a benzodiazepine.
Quote:
Ethyl Alcohol/Benzodiazepines Interactions

Medical warning:

Serious. These medicines may interact and cause very harmful effects. Contact your healthcare professional (e.g. doctor or pharmacist) for more information.
Again, what I would like to see is a cite that drunks are routinely dosed with sedatives on their way to detox.

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by Shodan; 01-07-2019 at 11:52 AM.
  #28  
Old 01-07-2019, 08:08 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,444
IANAL but being detained against one's will is the act of arrest. It does not require police to level any charges but they do have to justify the act. Arrest without charges comes with a time limit. resisting detainment within the time period is resisting arrest.

Last edited by Magiver; 01-07-2019 at 08:10 PM.
  #29  
Old 01-07-2019, 08:35 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeingtrillions View Post
According to various documentation online this is due to joint trainings resulting in a working relationship with the goal of ensuring safety. Officers don't say you are going to detox because that agitates people which leads to unsafe situations. If you end up inside an ambulance instead of going to detox you are sedated because you will probably be agitated and could hurt yourself or the paramedic.

Thus, we have the situation where for jaywalking you end up in what might otherwise look like a kidnapping / alien abduction situation: someone walks up behind you, puts you in handcuffs, forces you into a van, you fight, so they sedate you and you wake up in a dark room chained to a bed.

All 100% legal, proceduralized and commonplace.
No it isn't!

First of all, unless they are an actual paramedic ambulance staff don't administer narcotic intravenous drugs.

Second, sedatives are not administered to an intoxicated person when the substance causing intoxication is unknown or alcohol. Even when the cause of impairment is known it's rare that sedatives are given.

Third, when administration of such drugs is given, it's almost always in a hospital/clinic setting, not on the street. Giving such an injection in an ambulance or detox transport would be extraordinarily rare, and the only one time I've ever actually seen it was in the case of an excited delirium patient. And I don't know what they gave him as his intoxicant was Psilocybin.


Finally, I've been on the job since '82 in a large metropolitan city. I've dealt with taking people to detox a zillion times. Nothing in your story is even close to reality. Might I suggest you were so fucked up you don't know what really happened to you? Black outs, delusions, and false memories are common with people who are dangerously and/or chronically inebriated.
  #30  
Old 01-07-2019, 08:57 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
but being detained against one's will is the act of arrest.
Under Terry it's a detainment not an arrest. Reasonable suspicion must be present which is a lesser standard than probable cause which is needed for an arrest.

When I pull over a car on traffic stop the entire car is seized, including all passengers inside. They are not under arrest but they are not free to go either.

ETA: In my state the law is Resisting or obstructing officer. not resisting arrest. A person doesn't have to be under arrest or even detained to be guilty of it.

Last edited by pkbites; 01-07-2019 at 08:58 PM.
  #31  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:17 PM
Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 28,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Under Terry it's a detainment not an arrest. Reasonable suspicion must be present which is a lesser standard than probable cause which is needed for an arrest.
yes but what was described by the op appears to be detainment beyond a terry stop. which appears to be an arrest.
  #32  
Old 01-07-2019, 09:25 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
yes but what was described by the op appears to be detainment beyond a terry stop. which appears to be an arrest.
The OP could have been a mental health hold which is not an arrest. But someone did tell them they were under arrest. So that's that.

BTW, I'm calling BS on the P. Some or all of it didn't happen or at very least didn't happen the way described. I can't imagine anywhere in the U.S. things going down like that. The claim of being sedated is the biggest red flag.
  #33  
Old 01-07-2019, 10:26 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,568

TIL


Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
...And I don't know what they gave him as his intoxicant was Psilocybin...
Possibly benzos, but it seems unlikely he'd get those from paramedics so fuck if I know.
.

Last edited by andros; 01-07-2019 at 10:27 PM.
  #34  
Old 01-08-2019, 04:30 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelliebly View Post
As I understand it, police don't have to tell the person what he's being arrested for at the time of arrest. I think that idea came from movies and TV. It's the DA who determines what the charges will be (if any), and it can take some time. In felony cases, the accused is formally charged with the crime at the arraignment.
In Ohio a person arrested without a warrant must be informed of the charge against him, but if he is in the commission of a crime, the officer does not have to tell the arrestee the reason.
  #35  
Old 01-08-2019, 04:57 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by memeingtrillions View Post
Hypothetical scenario: You are jaywalking in Denver and the police pull up behind you. You are quickly cuffed without warning but are not under arrest. The police make idle conversation and jokes with you for about 20 minutes before a detox van quietly parks a few feet behind you, and you are walked into it without any warning...
[*] Liberty / freedom of movement: Public intoxication is not a crime in CO and you were not charged with jaywalking or anything
Maybe PI is against the law in that city and is an arrestable offense? Maybe jaywalking is an arrestable offense in that city?

Did the detainee ask what his custodial status was after being cuffed?
  #36  
Old 01-08-2019, 05:08 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
When I pull over a car on traffic stop the entire car is seized, including all passengers inside. They are not under arrest but they are not free to go either.
If you are speaking of Brendlin, all passengers are seized and can thus challenge the constitutionality of the stop, yes. Does this mean no passenger is free to leave if no RS keeps them there?
  #37  
Old 01-08-2019, 09:55 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTU2 View Post
If you are speaking of Brendlin, all passengers are seized and can thus challenge the constitutionality of the stop, yes. Does this mean no passenger is free to leave if no RS keeps them there?
Yes. Brendlin V California and Maryland V Wilson.

With its decision in this case, the Court expressly so held. "We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission." (Brendlin).

My point, going back to earlier posts, is that while they are being detained they are not "under arrest" like some here have insinuated.

In reality do we let passengers leave on a traffic stop? Sure. 95% of traffic stops turn out to be just that, only a traffic infraction. Passenger needs to keep going to get to school or work and nothing seems hinkey, be on your way while I cite your buddy.
  #38  
Old 01-09-2019, 05:02 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
My point, going back to earlier posts, is that while they are being detained they are not "under arrest" like some here have insinuated.
I can't remember the case in my head but when a warrant is served the police have a right to detain anyone on the premises, but they are not under arrest. Am I right on that?
  #39  
Old 01-09-2019, 06:29 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,641
I believe once you are handcuffed, you are under arrest.

This may not be the BEST site but...https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...y-lawyers.html

Quote:
Does Police Custody Mean I Am Arrested?
Police can have you in their custody without actually arresting you. Police custody is generally defined as anytime the police deprive you of your freedom of action or where you know you cannot get up and leave the presence of the police by your free will. An arrest actually occurs when:

You are detained by physical restraint
You are booked at the police station
You are placed in handcuffs, or
You are placed in the back of a locked police car
If the police have you in their custody or they have arrested you, they must inform you of your Miranda rights and give you the opportunity to exercise those rights.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #40  
Old 01-09-2019, 07:09 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 71
Typo, this may help, I had to rattle my brain a little to remember the case. Was the detention/seizure of Richardson a Terry Stop or an Arrest?

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...949/851/82608/

Last edited by LTU2; 01-09-2019 at 07:11 PM.
  #41  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:52 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
I believe once you are handcuffed, you are under arrest.
Not necessarily. I can cuff occupants of a dwelling while executing a search warrant and it doesn't mean they are under arrest.

I have also cuffed people during Terry Stops for mine and their safety and, at the time, they weren't yet under arrest. Remember, just because one is being detained does not automatically mean they are under arrest.

Quote:
An arrest actually occurs when:

You are detained by physical restraint

Not always. I have used escort and come along holds on people during Terry Stops. They weren't under arrest.

You are placed in handcuffs

As I explained above, not always.


You are placed in the back of a locked police car

False. Do this all the time at domestic calls. Seperate the parties, put one in the back of the squad, question the other, try to find out who did what and so on. Person in the squad is not [yet] under arrest.

If the police have you in their custody or they have arrested you, they must inform you of your Miranda rights and give you the opportunity to exercise those rights.

Absolutely incorrect. Miranda only has to be given when you are under arrest AND you are being questioned. About 95% of my arrests do not involve Miranda. Don't let Law and Order fool you. The police are not reading Miranda warnings while they are fighting with suspects, huffing and puffing trying to get the words out. That's TV, doesn't work that way. I usually don't have to question people because I already know what they did, which is why they are already under arrest.

BTW, I'm a cop, not an attorney. None of this is legal advice.
  #42  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:09 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Been a week since the OP has been around. Guess they didn't like us punching all those holes in his story.
  #43  
Old 01-15-2019, 03:08 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Not necessarily. I can cuff occupants of a dwelling while executing a search warrant and it doesn't mean they are under arrest.

I have also cuffed people during Terry Stops for mine and their safety and, at the time, they weren't yet under arrest. Remember, just because one is being detained does not automatically mean they are under arrest.

Quote:
An arrest actually occurs when:

You are detained by physical restraint

Not always. I have used escort and come along holds on people during Terry Stops. They weren't under arrest.

You are placed in handcuffs

As I explained above, not always.


You are placed in the back of a locked police car

False. Do this all the time at domestic calls. Seperate the parties, put one in the back of the squad, question the other, try to find out who did what and so on. Person in the squad is not [yet] under arrest.

If the police have you in their custody or they have arrested you, they must inform you of your Miranda rights and give you the opportunity to exercise those rights.

Absolutely incorrect. Miranda only has to be given when you are under arrest AND you are being questioned. About 95% of my arrests do not involve Miranda. Don't let Law and Order fool you. The police are not reading Miranda warnings while they are fighting with suspects, huffing and puffing trying to get the words out. That's TV, doesn't work that way. I usually don't have to question people because I already know what they did, which is why they are already under arrest.

BTW, I'm a cop, not an attorney. None of this is legal advice.
In any of those cases, would I be free to go?

If I am not free to go, then how am I not under arrest?
  #44  
Old 01-15-2019, 03:52 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 994
Perhaps he was referring to this?

"At urging of Minneapolis police, Hennepin EMS workers subdued dozens with a powerful sedative"

http://www.startribune.com/at-urging...ive/485607381/
  #45  
Old 01-15-2019, 03:53 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
In any of those cases, would I be free to go?

If I am not free to go, then how am I not under arrest?
Because it is legally possible to restrain someone without formally arresting them, which I believe has already been explained in this thread.
  #46  
Old 01-15-2019, 05:18 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
In any of those cases, would I be free to go?

If I am not free to go, then how am I not under arrest?
Here is a reference case to my post 38, Bailey expands on Summers about detaining those on the premises during execution of a warrant, even though the police have no reason to believe they have committed any crime.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-770
  #47  
Old 01-15-2019, 05:35 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 10,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
In any of those cases, would I be free to go?

If I am not free to go, then how am I not under arrest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Because it is legally possible to restrain someone without formally arresting them, which I believe has already been explained in this thread.
This.

In some situations one can be detained, even seized by the police without actually being under arrest. This has been explained and cases provided.
Terry V Ohio, Brendlin V California, Maryland V Wilson, Baily V U.s., Summers, etc..
  #48  
Old 01-16-2019, 10:02 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
Perhaps he was referring to this?

"At urging of Minneapolis police, Hennepin EMS workers subdued dozens with a powerful sedative"

http://www.startribune.com/at-urging...ive/485607381/
WADR this is not an example of routinely sedating every drunk on his way to detox if he cuts up rough.

Regards,
Shodan
  #49  
Old 01-16-2019, 10:45 AM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
WADR this is not an example of routinely sedating every drunk on his way to detox if he cuts up rough.

Regards,
Shodan
Well, in his initial post, he doesn't actually say that the person was drunk; just that they were put in a detox van and sedated.

Actually, in the article I linked it states,
Quote:
"The police encounters that led to EMS using ketamine ranged from cases of obstruction of justice to jaywalking, according to the report."
Jaywalking is the one crime that was actually mentioned in the OP.

Last edited by Sinaptics; 01-16-2019 at 10:46 AM.
  #50  
Old 01-16-2019, 11:08 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
Well, in his initial post, he doesn't actually say that the person was drunk; just that they were put in a detox van and sedated.

Actually, in the article I linked it states,

Jaywalking is the one crime that was actually mentioned in the OP.
Sure, but the OP also mentioned that public intoxication was not against the law in Colorado, which kind of implies that in his scenario, the jaywalking charge was more or less a pretext. Plus, as a general rule, police don't send people to detox for jaywalking. Usually it's because they are drunk and/or drugged.

Also, from your link -
Quote:
A statement included in the report from Hennepin EMS Medical Director Jeffrey Ho and Minnesota Poison Control System Medical Director Jon Cole dismissed the findings of the report as a “reckless use of anecdotes and partial snapshots of interactions with police, and incomplete information and statistics to draw uninformed and incorrect conclusions."

“This draft report will prevent the saving of lives by promoting the concept of allowing people to exhaust themselves to death,” Cole and Ho wrote.
And
Quote:
Mayor Jacob Frey said all medical decisions highlighted in the draft report were made by Hennepin County medical professionals. He said it was necessary for the city to clarify in policy that police are not to give input to EMS and hospital professionals beyond factual information.
So again, not quite the same thing as having the paramedics doping up anyone the police say.

Which is not to say the Mpls police necessarily acted wisely, nor that there might be some civil rights or other violations implied in the OP.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017