This is a reference to the common practice of law enforcement, when arresting various suspected felons, of making a big splash of it, deliberately parading them in handcuffs in front of the media. In some cases, there may be some law enforcement necessity for this treatment - my question is about the cases where it is not.
For the most part, white collar criminals. The Rigas family members offered to surrender at a time and place of law enforcement’s choosing (according to their lawyer) but were rejected by the gov, which chose to roust them out of bed and parade them in handcuffs. I don’t see any law enforcement necessity for this - these guys were not about to slug an officer and make a run for it.
People have very little sympathy for these people, who are, for the most part, criminals. But some are not. In the 80’s, Rudolph Guiliani, in his capacity as US Attorney prosecuting insider trading, had a bunch of suspected insider traders arrested and handcuffed at their offices. Many of these people were later acquitted or had charges dropped.
So the question is this: is an action that might in some cases be a legitimate law enforcement need but in this instance is being performed as a punitive measure legal, before trial and conviction? (One might wonder - if it is indeed illegal, why have none of these guys sued over it. But it is possible that the case would be difficult to prove, and in any event, most of these guys are the type that don’t the money or want this type of publicity).
Well, in a democracy you would have to have concerns about this kind of behaviour. One concern would be that the arrest was being conducted not for the purpose of any investigation or prosecution but for the purpose of attracting favourable publicity to the police or the prosecuting authorities, and that would obviously be improper.
We had a case in Ireland a few years ago where the police obtained a warrant to search a law firm’s offices. At the time the firm concerned was acting for the suspect in a high-profile murder case on which public feeling was very strong, and the authorities were under pressure to demonstrate progress. The police leaked to the media the fact that the warrant had been obtained, and the time at which the search was to take place, and the search itself became a media circus. Subsequently the lawyers concerned were publicly abused, and represented in the media as being involved in murder and money-laundering. There was no basis for any of this.
The firm sued the state, and recovered aggravated damages. The cause of action was the leak to the media, not the search itself, which was lawful. But there remains more than a suspicion that the search was conducted solely so that it could be leaked to the media in order to attract favourable publicity for the authorities.
If this were true of an arrest it would be even more worrying.
I think one’s only recourse against this is if they could prove they were arrested without probable cause. They might also be able to win a “malicious prosecution” case.
I don’t think they would get anywhere with the arrest itself - there’s surely reason to bring them in. But this does not seem to imply to me that the arresters can do whatever they want to the guys they are arresting. Suppose they made them crawl on the floor, kiss the feet of the police etc. I would imagine that they would be liable because they did not have a legitimate law enforcement reason for doing so. So what would be magical about handcuffs? If there is no legitimate reason for using them, they should be no difference than any other abuse of power.
IIRC, Timothy McVeigh used the argument that he couldn’t get a fair trial because of all the news media coverage showing him in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs with the crowd jeering at him. Certainly, if a prosecutor wants to ensure a conviction that will stand up on appeal, he or she should keep these sorts of displays to a minimum. IANAL
From the U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd circuit) holding in the case of Lauro v. Charles
The reasoning is similar to that in Hanlon v. Berger, in which the unconstitutionality of media ride-alongs was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Lauro decision does allow “perp walks” for legitimate law enforcement purposes, if such exist.
There’s a difference between arresting someone in a public place and having the media show up and a “perp walk” in which handcuffed suspects are moved between police precincts/vehicles/jail/arraignment proceedings publicly for the sole purpose of allowing the media to get photographs/videotape, especially when said transfers could be accomplished in secluded, non-public spaces such as garages, transfer hallways, etc.
Any suspect under arrest for any crime constitutes a threat to the arresting officers and those around them. There is no way for the police to know whether or not someone will lose their mind and grab a gun and start shooting. Everyone under arrest is placed in handcuffs, even when they come willingly. There is no abuse of power inherent in their use.
The part that is troublesome to me is the “tipping” of the press. Not only does that not serve any law enforcement purpose, it is actually potentially contra to the law enforcement purpose – what’s to stop the press from leaking the time of arrest, allowing the suspect to make an escape? Stupid grandstanding, it should not be done.
Thank you nametag - that’s what I was looking for.
I think this is absurd, in many cases. Actually, the guys don’t even need guns (I’m not sure if they even had them) in cases like this. I don’t think anyone takes seriously the notion that these are being done for a legitimate security reason.
FWIW, here’s some coverage of the Rigas & WorldCom Perp Walks. You be the judge.