A DETENTION is shorter in duration and scope than an ARREST, and requires a lower burden of proof.
If I have Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur, and reasonably believe that a person may have information about this, I can DETAIN them for a short period of time to investigate the matter. As part of my investigation, I can conduct a pat down for weapons (if I reasonably believe that they may be present) and seek information to determine exactly what is, has, or will happen. The time frame can vary a bit due to each set of circumstances, but 20 minutes or so has been ruled to be a reasonable time frame for detaining someone.
If I have Probable Cause to believe a specific person has committed a crime, I can ARREST that person. At that point, I can conduct a complete search of their person for weapons, evidence, and contraband, as well as their vehicle if they are or have been near it recently. I can remove them from the scene and hold them (in jail) for 24 hours or until I get a warrant issued for the charges.
If anyone resists an arrest or detention, I am authorized to use force to apprehend them (in addition, resisting an arrest or detention is a crime, so resisting immediately gives me probable cause to make an arrest).
Normally I don't have to use any "meaningful" physical force to restrain someone I am detaining or arresting. Most people cooperate on their own.
A person can usually tell, because I'll tell them when they are under arrest. If a case arises when I handcuff someone who is merely detained, I will tell them, "You're not under arrest at this time; you are being detained while I investigate what's going on."
So, is this "experienced" police officer "informed" or "misinformed?" When he/she says: "Most people cooperate on their own," ...does that "cooperation" imply giving up rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments? Would exercising those rights result in the officer using ""meaningful" physical force to restrain someone (he/she is) detaining or arresting."
mustang
Quote from: mustang on December 30, 2010, 09:38:49 AM
As part of my investigation, I can conduct a pat down for weapons (if I reasonably believe that they may be present)
No you may not.
This also requires a threat.
timf343
Where do I start?
Quote from: mustang on December 30, 2010, 09:38:49 AM
When asked, "What is “detainment” and what is “arrest?”... here’s what an "experienced" police officer had to say:
A DETENTION is shorter in duration and scope than an ARREST, and requires a lower burden of proof.
If I have Reasonable Suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur, and reasonably believe that a person may have information about this, I can DETAIN them for a short period of time to investigate the matter. As part of my investigation, I can conduct a pat down for weapons (if I reasonably believe that they may be present) and seek information to determine exactly what is, has, or will happen. The time frame can vary a bit due to each set of circumstances, but 20 minutes or so has been ruled to be a reasonable time frame for detaining someone.
A pat down for weapons can ONLY happen if two conditions are met. The officer lists the first one (if he reasonably believes that
Patdown and Plain Feel (LVMPD Policy 5/200.02)
This is a frisk for officer safety reasons, done prior to arrest that is based on articulable reason that the person may be armed. The right to frisk does not automatically accompany the right to stop. Pat down searches include squeezing the outer clothing for any weapons that may place the officer in danger.
Plain feel: If during the frisk for weapons, the officer feels an item that is not suspected to be a weapon, but it is immediately apparent from the mass and shape that the item is probably contraband, the officer can legally seize the item. However, the item must be detectable during plain feel, the officer is not permitted to conduct additional searches, or even change grip on an item, to determine that it is contraband.
Here in Nevada, a "reasonable" time frame is the amount of time it takes to investigate. If a reasonable time frame for the investigation of your specific case is 7 minutes, keeping you 8 minutes is unreasonable. In Nevada, the "reasonable" time frame shall never exceed 60 minutes, although police officers have been known to threaten a suspect with keeping him there in handcuffs the full 60 minutes.
Quote from: mustang on December 30, 2010, 09:38:49 AM
If I have Probable Cause to believe a specific person has committed a crime, I can ARREST that person. At that point, I can conduct a complete search of their person for weapons, evidence, and contraband, as well as their vehicle if they are or have been near it recently. I can remove them from the scene and hold them (in jail) for 24 hours or until I get a warrant issued for the charges.
Searching the car incident to arrest is a difficult one. Let's say you were pulled over for drunk driving, and then arrested for DUI after the officer discovers you are impaired. A search of your vehicle is allowed to search for evidence of your crime, for example an empty whiskey bottle. This would likely not include searching a backpack located in the trunk, but your mileage here may vary.
If, on the other hand, you were being arrested for an open warrant, merely having been in your car recently is grossly insufficient to warrant a search. No search would be permissible.
Quote from: mustang on December 30, 2010, 09:38:49 AM
If anyone resists an arrest or detention, I am authorized to use force to apprehend them (in addition, resisting an arrest or detention is a crime, so resisting immediately gives me probable cause to make an arrest).
Normally I don't have to use any "meaningful" physical force to restrain someone I am detaining or arresting. Most people cooperate on their own.
A person can usually tell, because I'll tell them when they are under arrest. If a case arises when I handcuff someone who is merely detained, I will tell them, "You're not under arrest at this time; you are being detained while I investigate what's going on."[/i]
This sounds like the officer got it right. He implies that he doesn't handcuff every suspect he detains. This tells me for sure it's not a Las Vegas officer who said it, since it seems handcuffing is done for almost everyone detained in the front of a cruiser. But that doesn't mean they're obeying policy.
6/002.00(5) of the LVMPD policy states handcuffs WILL be used in all cases of arrest, no exception. And handcuffs MAY be used under the following circumstances:
During investigative stops where one or more of these factors exist:
1.) Articulable facts that a subject is physically uncooperative
2.) Articulable facts that a subject's actions at the scene may present physical danger to themselves or others if not restrained
3.) Reasonable possibility of flight based on action of the subject
4.) Information that the subject is currently armed
5.) The stop closely follows a violent crime and the subject matches specific parts of a description
6.) When there are articulable facts that a crime of violence is about to occur,
The policy goes on to state "The authority to handcuff during investigatory stops continues for only as long as the circumstances above exist."
I cite my own stop on Las Vegas Blvd when I was open carrying. Based on policy, assuming they had RAS to detain me, which I maintain they did not, they were allowed to handcuff me since I was currently armed. Once they disarmed me, I was no longer currently armed and my restraints were required to be removed. They did not, and the handcuffs remained on for 20 minutes in violation of policy.
I do firmly believe police use handcuffs as a form of intimidation, and disregard the policy which grants them authority in their use.
Quote from: mustang on December 30, 2010, 09:38:49 AM
So, is this "experienced" police officer "informed" or "misinformed?" When he/she says: "Most people cooperate on their own," ...does that "cooperation" imply giving up rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments? Would exercising those rights result in the officer using ""meaningful" physical force to restrain someone (he/she is) detaining or arresting."
I think "cooperation" in the context used simply means the suspect merely does not resist physically. Cooperating with a detention does not mean waiving your rights (other than your 4th to be free of seizure, which you no longer have if proper circumstances exist to detain you). At least here in NV, opting to remain silent, or request an attorney, or refuse to be searched would not give the officer authority to restrain you under policy, but that doesn't mean they won't. In fact, I can hear the "articulable facts" now --- "The subject refused to give his social security number and I felt that meant he was going to run."
Quote from: timf343 on December 30, 2010, 04:57:32 PM
...opting to remain silent, or request an attorney, or refuse to be searched would not give the officer authority to restrain you under policy, but that doesn't mean they won't.
Exactly
