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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :dubious: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.
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.
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…
[li] Liberty / freedom of movement: Public intoxication is not a crime in CO and you were not charged with jaywalking or anything[/li][/QUOTE]
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?
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?
***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.
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?