399 Md. 486
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Reginald Anthony LONGSHORE
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 139 Sept.Term, 2004.
June 8, 2007.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Bell, C.J., held that:
1 defendant was arrested, rather than detained, when law enforcement officers asked him to exit his car and placed him in handcuffs;
The Maryland law is very clear. You handcuff someone, you have ARRESTED them.
37 comments:
"A person is under arrest, for Fourth Amendment purposes, when he is asked to step out of
his car and placed in handcuffs, when no special circumstances, such as a risk of flight or
danger to the police officers, exists justifying the use of handcuffs."
From the ruling posted.
Now find a judge that thinks you have rights.
Arrest is any detention of a citizen. Not all arrest lead to criminal charges and not all arrest require handcuffs. That being said most police officers know you better have a damn good justifiable reason for restricting a citizens free movement
To those of you challenging me, cite some legal authority to the contrary.
When I went through the police academy the state stressed handcuffs equal arrest . Detention equals arrest and the term "investigative detention" was a play on words for what it actually was Arrest. Any detention no matter how limited is a form of arrest
The officer had legal reason for the stop. The model citizen who was most certainly on his way to bible study gave the officer reason to believe additional crimes had, were being, or were about to be committed, by lying, poorly I may add, don't they teach math anymore??? When the turd pulled away from the officer he became a flight risk. Detaining with handcuffs seems appropriate... Of course this doesn't support Joe's agenda so he will not publish this comment....
11:11 They always have legal reason or they make one up! Come on people are not dumb! If they can stop you for no seat belt they can stop you for anything! Its your word against theirs and they will make sure they are right! I understand why Black people are concerned and I am a Right Wing Person! Police have gone too far just admit it and let's fix the problem!
JOE
the people of SBY are too stupid to understand any of that stuff...
What is more funny though is, how you did the work for them as they all want because they ARE LAZY people, and they still won't take the time to read it or understand it and most of the time they are too stupid to understand words and their meanings...
11:11, The 14 yo was NOT told he was under arrest. The Officer attempted to handcuff him for a traffic violation. Again, are we in such a state these days that even 14 yo children are to be presumed guilty of a CRIME just because an Officer sees a BLACK kid riding a bike without a light? Was there a call that someone broke into something in that area, NO. Did this child fit a description of someone wanted? The Officer had no right detaining this kid and his Aunt simply responded as ANY one of us would if we had watched the Officer aggressively go after one of our own kids and don't forget, she took quite a beating from this Officer as well.
This case is different in that it lacked probable cause or RAS (reasonable articuable suspicion) for detainment. In reading the case, the police got a tip from a confidential informant. The police arrived at a mall location and observed the suspect talking to a man in the parking lot. When the other man left, police conducted a stop, the man consented to a search which yielded drugs. However, there was no direct correlation between the man and the suspect other than the conversation nor did the man admit that he received drugs from the suspect.
If consent is refused, you must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to detain. The reasonable suspicion factors must establish the reasons for the detention. You must be able to articulate each observation that is a potential indicator of drug trafficking or use.
While the suspect was in the mall, a drug sniffing dog was brought in to scan the parked vehicle. The dog did not "hit" on the vehicle. A stop was made by detectives, the suspect was detained, and the dog was brought back, which yielded a positive scan. The traffic stop was based on RAS and not a traffic violation. Thereby we have fruits of the poisonous tree.
Typically, a police officer would stop the vehicle for an observable traffic offense, call a K-9 if he/she felt there were drugs within the vehicle, and scan the vehicle. If the dog hits on the vehicle, it results in probable cause for a search. Air outside of a vehicle is not private. In this case it was uncovered during appeal that the drug dog did not hit on the vehicle initially because it was on medication. Thus, making the drug dog unreliable.
This was called into question in case McKay v. State and the police officers were found justified because there was probable cause for the stop, a traffic infraction, and pursuant drug scan. Although, a traffic infraction is not required if sufficient other probable cause is formulated by the police (such as observable drug transactions).
A person can be subject to detainment by the police if the police have RAS United States v Dewitt (946 F. 2d 1497 (1991) Tenth Circuit to believe that the suspect may be armed, may flee the stop, or is a danger to himself or others, among other reasons. Police officers can also affect an investigative detention based on RAS to believe that a crime has been committed and to develop probable cause for the arrest. Defense attorneys argue suppression because they want to invoke a fruits of the poisonous tree argument. If the detainment was illegal (because it is deemed an arrest) then everything after that is an illegal search. Understand that when I say illegal, I mean suppressible. The officer may be acting in good faith, as detailed by the good faith exception to probable cause, and have made a procedural mistake, not a criminal one.
Different court cases and judges interpret detainment differently. Much of detainment has to do with RAS rather than probable cause. Many defense attorneys argue that simply applying handcuffs to someone is an arrest. Many judges do not regard an arrest as such and more that the person is transported from the scene and booked for a charge. Frequently, the litmus test is if a person was transported from the scene, handcuffed or otherwise detained by the police.
So in short, my opinion is that police officers do have absolute detaining authority without making an arrest if RAS exists until they can formulate probable cause for a crime in a reasonable time or other factors exist as mentioned previously.
This is my opinion and should be regarded as such. Consult an attorney for council rather than rely on this opinion. We are not an attorney nor admitted to the bar.
Evan Avnet
Tactical American Security Consulting, LLC.
11:52
Good post and response. I always believe there are two sides to every story and if this was the case for probable cause based on observance, the stop and detainment was justified.
Read my assessment of the juvenile case under previous articles about the juvenile issue. I'd rather separate the two to avoid confusion of what I am discussing.
Evan Avnet
Tactical American Security Consulting, LLC.
"The Officer had no right detaining this kid"
How bout the fact that he LIED ABOUT HIS NAME AND DOB, which is a CRIMINAL ARRESTABLE offense. Did you seem to forget that part???
Multiple subjects stopped under suspicious circumstances and no backup in sight.One officer on scene.I cuffed every one of them until I had everything sorted out.Remember,as you state on a daily basis we're above the law.Technically legal or not I am still among the living and a judge never condemned my actions.
A "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.
Does handcuffing during a “Terry Stop” transform the stop into a full-blown arrest, which requires the officer to have probable cause rather than the lesser requirement of reasonable suspicion? A case from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut determined that the application of handcuffs does not automatically turn an otherwise valid “Terry Stop” into a full-blown arrest.
The ruling cited on this post is specific to that defendant.
By all means. Listen to Evan Avnet. A pillar in the law enforcement community. Just asked anyone who worked with him. Evan, stick with what you know, and when you figure out what you know, maybe you can let everyone else know. I had no idea you worked with confidential informants. That's right, you haven't.
Like I said you will make it work to your advantage! And does anyone think the cop knew what the latest poster just wrote? You would have to be a Philadelphia Lawyer which he probably is! It was a 14 year old kid!! And his Aunt too? Just admit mistakes were made and fix it!! The problem is Cops are all Alpha Males that refuse to admit they make wrong decisions and cover up for each other in the name of public safety! That is the job you chose!!
first off every one knows you can make a drug dog to hit on command so that is bogus. bottom line you don't have to answer anything to a kop. other then I plead the 5th. so take a hike, get a warrant so I can sue your sorry asses!
To the Lawyer trying to send in case law, (as I requested).
SEND US MARYLAND CASE LAW! NOT laws from other states.
To Evan Avnet:
This is not a terry stop. Nor is there pre-existing threats of violence to the officer or others.
At minimum it's impermissible profiling. It's simple stuff. If he's attacking the officer, or threatens anything or anyone, different story.
The point is, that under Maryland law, this is an arrest. Longshore v. State makes it clear.
While I did not publish the "Lawyers" response/comment, out of respect for their time let me reply by saying this. There was no objective pre/existing threat of danger to the officer or the public.
Try again.
Why shouldn't he be arrested? He lied when asked questions by the police...he lied to hide something! What was his attitude, language, demeanor, physical posture...a hole lot of BS about nothing.
Think about this way.
If a white, middle-class female was pulled over for riding a bike without a helmet, and then detained, searched, frisked, and handcuffed, while the officer was writing the ticket, would that be permissible? It sounds ridiculous, right? The same exact legal analysis exists in this case.
The Officer was WAY out of line.
Hey Joe, if the white lady acted the same way then by all means she would be dealt with appropriately.
I BET all sharpton will step out with eric holder and say this is ridiculous Ray rice was framed by the white man.
They`re All way out of line. They`re 'academized' to belive most of the population are criminals which leads to paranoid actions who lead to cases such as the one with the elderly black couple stopped and removed from their car on busy I-95. Ernest Leatherbury Sr., the then Assistant Superintendant of the Md. State police was called into testimony after this incident accused the elderly couple of 'Fitting the Profile of Drug Smugglers' to which a contest was filed in U.S.District Court naming MSP and the troopers as the defendants.An over-zealous trooper terrorized this geriatric
black couple while on the side of the road on an interstate highway with NO regard for their individual saftey ot their belongings. In the end, the ruling was against MSP as the Judge said equal protections should have been taken to insure no harm would come to the couple in case of a traffic accident from which they had no shelter. This cost MSP a liability LOAD along with having to appologize to the couple. When I was going through the academy, our instructors taught us to NOT be A BULLY woth a badge or a paranoid idiot.We DID`T start trouble. We took trouble in hand with whatever force needed AFTER the situation dictated the magnitude of the response.These young police nowadays are taught to be aggressive in the WRONG theaters.I had several excessive force complaints in my personnel
jacket but was exonerated of all because I wouldn`t act in a manner that escalated a minor offense of the law into a riot. The bottom line in the country today is the cops training is conducted by a group of overly aggressive cadre who watch way too much para-military defication on television. If they want to do urban warfare such as I experienced overseas, then they should join up and see the world where theres REAL TROUBLE!!!!!!!!
Bob Aswell
1:52 Give up on it! The Cop was out of Line no way to spin it away!! If he would have beat my 14 year old son and his Aunt there would have been some charges on me too! How about anyone else out there?
Thanks for sharing that Bob.
Here's the thing. The people at the Police Academy are doing exactly what they should be doing, teaching the cadets how to police BY THE LAW.
Unfortunately, once these Officer go to their new Police Department, much of what they were taught gets thrown right out the door and IF they follow the letter of the law they become an outcast.
You are right. The young Officers are aggressive and short fused. This is why I had stated days ago, the Veteran Officers have wisdom and carry themselves better.
I personally witnessed a HORRIBLE arrest years ago in Salisbury where a homeless man was simply walking across the parking lot Downtown on a weekend. I watched the entire thing unfold. The homeless man did NOTHING and I do mean NOTHING. The Officer was getting louder and louder and then attempted to put handcuffs on the man. The homeless man was a much larger person and when the Officer tried to cuff him the homeless man kept saying, what did I do, why are you arresting me. The Officer keyed him mic several times and called for help, which means an officer shooting, (so I was told). Officers came flying into the parking lot, (5 of them) and took the guy down, who was NOT resisting. To make a long story short the one officer asked, why did you arrest him. The officer stumbled and then said, he spit towards my car. NO HE DID NOT, I was there and I took pictures of the entire thing.
Later that day I got a call from the SPD asking me what happened. I told them they didn't want to know. The Detective said, let me guess. New rookie officers tries to impress the brass on the third floor. I said, EXACTLY!
So you know, that homeless man sat in jail, GET THIS, for a YEAR. When I said I was going to testify against the Police the states attorneys office dropped the charges.
I have seen my fair share of young officers and know what they are capable of. Now, I know more about what might be in store for this officer in the near future, possibly more lawsuits for the same kind of behavior. That being said, there's a good reason I chose to run with these stories.
I have rejected a LOT of comments calling this child a "thug" and other racial comments. Many have come after him for his Facebook page. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE, NOTHING.
I guess because certain elected officials sued me or had people file bogus peace orders against me, if you were to look at my record I guess I'm supposed to be this horrible man who just seems to win every single case against me. What people see on record would look disturbing but in real life whenever people need something they come to me.
Don't judge a book by its cover. Ever hear of that? This is a 14 year old KID who got the sh!t kicked out of him by a TRAINED POLICE OFFICER. I hear that Officer spends FOUR HOURS A DAY IN THE GYM. Yeah, sounds like a really fair confrontation to me.
Oh, by the way. There's NOT ONE scratch on the Officer, NOT ONE.
According to the kid in his taped interview he gave consent to be searched and it appears the officer didn't even ask.
4 hrs in the gym
what a PUNK.
3:43, WHO are you calling a "PUNK"?
The cop.
Suggest reading the complete opinion, which contains this --
"A warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in an officer's presence, is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 418, 96 S.Ct. 820, 825, 46 L.Ed.2d 598, 606 (1976), see also Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 1557, 149 L.Ed.2d 549, 577 (2001) (stating "[i]f an officer has probable cause to believe an individual has committed even a very minor offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender"
PS -- did you get the stuff in our post from Rommell or Otway?
If you are on a bicycle, the police can stop you if they think that you have broken a provincial or municipal traffic law. If this happens you must stop and give them your name and address. If you refuse, they can arrest you. If you lie about your name or address, you can be charged with an offence such as obstructing justice or obstructing the police. These charges usually involve harsher penalties than a traffic ticket.
If you are stopped on your bicycle, you don't have to give the police any other information other than your name or address. The police are not allowed to search you if you are on a bicycle, unless they are arresting you for some other reasons. If this happens, politely say that you do not consent to the search, but do physically not interfere, and ask the police to speak to a lawyer right away.
Joseph,
Since Sarbanes won't be hearing the cases in the Federal Court, how about a judicial candidate forum on the legal aspects with him and M.J. Caldwell, no holds barred, moderated by you and live on SBYNEWS?
Joe, What does the officer spending 4 hours in the gym have anything to do with this case? Just as the 14 year old's Facebook page isn't relevant nor is the officer's time spent working out, which I know for a fact to be exagerated.
Nice try 6:22.
The Officer will find out soon enough.
Post a Comment