A primer on handcuffing in non-arrest situations

[eye95]

SUGGESTIVE of arrest???

B.S.

If I am in cuffs, I consider myself to have been arrested.
Any and all interaction I have with the cops beyond what is absolutely required by law has ended.

I guess bleeding is just SUGGESTIVE of injury, eh?

-MH

Excellent analogy. Bleeding IS only suggestive of injury! While bleeding almost always means injury, not all bleeding is the result of injury! Likewise, cuffs almost alway mean arrest, but NOT always. They do mean that you have been seized. You may not agree with them doing so, but the courts recognize gradations of seizure, with varying amounts of cause required by and, varying amounts of authorities conferred upon, the officer seizing. Arrest is just one of those gradations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[DocWalker]

So...if someone is in handcuffs, but hasn't been told they are arrested, they are free to "escape"? I doubt this...

Nope you will be booked for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, or maybe jay walking....they will find something.

If I'm ever put into cuffs (and not for training) then I will insist on being taken in and booked. It will make my lawsuit payout that much bigger.

 

[carolina guy]

Nope you will be booked for resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, or maybe jay walking....they will find something.

If I'm ever put into cuffs (and not for training) then I will insist on being taken in and booked. It will make my lawsuit payout that much bigger.

I have to call bull...you cannot be charged with "resisting" something they are only "suggestive" of doing, but not actually doing.

If a "reasonable" person would conclude you have been "arrested", you have been arrested.

 

[DocWalker]

I have to call bull...you cannot be charged with "resisting" something they are only "suggestive" of doing, but not actually doing.

If a "reasonable" person would conclude you have been "arrested", you have been arrested.

Call bull all you want but try being in cuffs and start running away, I hope you like electricity or being football (see tackle). Deploying a tazer or making them break a sweat will get you some charge "resisting" is as good as any.

Most of us are reasonable and believe if your freedom is restricted (ie. cuffs) then you are arrested unfortunatly the OP has said other wise.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I have to call bull...you cannot be charged with "resisting" something they are only "suggestive" of doing, but not actually doing.

If a "reasonable" person would conclude you have been "arrested", you have been arrested.

They do it all the time, I bet most if pressed will be dropped, many will fall for the pressure of the prosecutor and the weight of the state and plea to a crime they weren't charged with. Kaching more money for the state and a nice record for the civilian.

 

[Citizen]

They do it all the time, I bet most if pressed will be dropped, many will fall for the pressure of the prosecutor and the weight of the state and plea to a crime they weren't charged with. Kaching more money for the state and a nice record for the civilian.

Kaching is the present participle of the sound an old electro-mechanical cash-register made?

 

[KYGlockster]

The choice to be in law enforcement is difficult because you will be required to do unethical things to keep your job.

This is NOT entirely true. The good PEACE OFFICERS must protect themselves, sure, but they do NOT have to do unethical actions in order to keep their job. I will never deprive someone of their rights. I will admit that there has been times when it would have been easy to do so, but I showed a little RESTRAINT and did what was right for both of us. I have been spit on; I have had **** thrown at me; I have been yelled at and assaulted; this list could go on and on. What I am trying to do is give a little visual of some of the things I have dealt with and I've only been a peace officer for a short time. All of this and I have not once violated another's rights. Sure, they ABSOLUTELY violated my rights (regardless of our professions we are still entitled to our rights), but I did NOT return the favor.

I'm sorry you've had such horrible encounters with what are supposed to be peace officers. I too have had some horrible encounters with them, and that is what made me enter the field. I want to change the direction the profession is heading, and I will do so with one kind act after another. It is amazing when people actually thank me for not going "ballistic" and assaulting them after they have had time to cool down. I have come to learn that most people act like idiots because they expect peace officers to automatically infringe on their rights and act belligerent to them. They have come to the conclusion that they might as well act the same way at the beginning of an interaction. When they realize that I have not and will not treat them like they have been treated before by other peace officers, they are sometimes amazed by that fact. I'm taking back the role of peace officer to its original intent. All I ask for is the same kindness and respect that I treat everyone with. I don't often get it at first, but people generally come around after they realize I am on their side.

 

[eye95]

This is NOT entirely true. The good PEACE OFFICERS must protect themselves, sure, but they do NOT have to do unethical actions in order to keep their job. I will never deprive someone of their rights. I will admit that there has been times when it would have been easy to do so, but I showed a little RESTRAINT and did what was right for both of us. I have been spit on; I have had **** thrown at me; I have been yelled at and assaulted; this list could go on and on. What I am trying to do is give a little visual of some of the things I have dealt with and I've only been a peace officer for a short time. All of this and I have not once violated another's rights. Sure, they ABSOLUTELY violated my rights (regardless of our professions we are still entitled to our rights), but I did NOT return the favor.

I'm sorry you've had such horrible encounters with what are supposed to be peace officers. I too have had some horrible encounters with them, and that is what made me enter the field. I want to change the direction the profession is heading, and I will do so with one kind act after another. It is amazing when people actually thank me for not going "ballistic" and assaulting them after they have had time to cool down. I have come to learn that most people act like idiots because they expect peace officers to automatically infringe on their rights and act belligerent to them. They have come to the conclusion that they might as well act the same way at the beginning of an interaction. When they realize that I have not and will not treat them like they have been treated before by other peace officers, they are sometimes amazed by that fact. I'm taking back the role of peace officer to its original intent. All I ask for is the same kindness and respect that I treat everyone with. I don't often get it at first, but people generally come around after they realize I am on their side.

The absolutist opinions of some here are reprehensible. They paint all cops, including you, with the same broad brush.

Logic lesson: You cannot use examples to prove an absolute statement. However, one single counter-example disproves it.

 

[OC for ME]

RSMo 544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.

RSMo 544.216. Any sheriff ... may arrest on view, and without a warrant, any person the officer sees violating or who such officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any law of this state, including a misdemeanor or infraction, or has violated any ordinance over which such officer has jurisdiction. <snip>

Handcuffs, in Missouri, are not required to be used to meet the requirements of the statute. Restraint without handcuffs or submitting to the verbal commands of the officer is an arrest in Missouri. Other states seem to have different legal requirements that define arrest.

Again, I reject the premise that a citizen, restrained in handcuffs, is in a more safe environment and not under arrest. That is a construct of LE and LE alone. PALO apparently has WA statutes to support his position. Being restrained places the citizen in a extremely vulnerable position whereby he is unable to protect himself. NO! handcuff do not make a citizen so restrained safer, the officer(s), yes they are safe-er.

 

[carolina guy]

Call bull all you want but try being in cuffs and start running away, I hope you like electricity or being football (see tackle). Deploying a tazer or making them break a sweat will get you some charge "resisting" is as good as any.

Most of us are reasonable and believe if your freedom is restricted (ie. cuffs) then you are arrested unfortunatly the OP has said other wise.

I wasn't suggesting that *I* would do so...I am too old and outta shape. ;-)

If someone is NOT CLEARLY under arrest, they CANNOT be charged with resisting arrest. PALO's examples are not SCOTUS or 50-state examples and I think has only served to create confusion. The "reasonable person" standard will QUICKLY come into play, methinks. So...I still call bull on this.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Kaching is the present participle of the sound an old electro-mechanical cash-register made?

....see what happens when I work a 12 hr day.....lol.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The absolutist opinions of some here are reprehensible. They paint all cops, including you, with the same broad brush.

Logic lesson: You cannot use examples to prove an absolute statement. However, one single counter-example disproves it.

I doubt the military attracts many pacifist to that occupation.

 

[DocWalker]

I wasn't suggesting that *I* would do so...I am too old and outta shape. ;-)

If someone is NOT CLEARLY under arrest, they CANNOT be charged with resisting arrest. PALO's examples are not SCOTUS or 50-state examples and I think has only served to create confusion. The "reasonable person" standard will QUICKLY come into play, methinks. So...I still call bull on this.

I do think most people minus people on drugs or with a mental condition would see manual restraints (ie handcuffs) as a lose of liberty and freedom. When you lose the ability to leave, defend yourself, and your general freedom you are "arrested". It does not require you to be booked or even taken to the station. The same would be true if you were locked in a police car and couldn't get out. A person in handcuffs dies in the back of a squad car, he was the responsiablity of the officers that placed him in that condition. He couldn't defend himself nor could he move to get help....he wasn't charged nor booked at the time....he was arrested according to the dictionary.


ar·rest
[uh-rest] Show IPA

verb (used with object)
1. to seize (a person) by legal authority or warrant; take into custody: The police arrested the burglar.

2. to catch and hold; attract and fix; engage: The loud noise arrested our attention.

3. to check the course of; stop; slow down: to arrest progress.

4. Medicine/Medical . to control or stop the active progress of (a disease): The new drug did not arrest the cancer.

noun
5. the taking of a person into legal custody, as by officers of the law.

6. any seizure or taking by force.

7. an act of stopping or the state of being stopped: the arrest of tooth decay.

8. Machinery . any device for stopping machinery; stop.

 

[OC for ME]

I would prefer not to be placed in a situation where I was cuffed, and then stuffed, and then somehow shot myself in the head in the back of a squad car. That would be embarrassing.

 

[DocWalker]

I would prefer not to be placed in a situation where I was cuffed, and then stuffed, and then somehow shot myself in the head in the back of a squad car. That would be embarrassing.

Hey don't forget some people would argue that you were NOT under arrest and that you could leave at anytime on your own accord....

 

[carolina guy]

Hey don't forget some people would argue that you were NOT under arrest and that you could leave at anytime on your own accord....

referring to PALO?

 

[OC for ME]

I think that PALO does not believe that a citizen he lawfully detains, which he considers to not be under arrest, would be free to end a encounter with him and thus the citizen would, obviously, not be free to leave. If the citizen did attempt to leave PALO could then arrest the citizen for attempting to steal government property.....the handcuffs.

 

[Citizen]

I think that PALO does not believe that a citizen he lawfully detains, which he considers to not be under arrest, would be free to end a encounter with him and thus the citizen would, obviously, not be free to leave. If the citizen did attempt to leave PALO could then arrest the citizen for attempting to steal government property.....the handcuffs.

(chuckle)

On a more serious note: ...as if government had any standing to complain when it stole the money to buy the handcuffs.

 

[carolina guy]

I think that PALO does not believe that a citizen he lawfully detains, which he considers to not be under arrest, would be free to end a encounter with him and thus the citizen would, obviously, not be free to leave. If the citizen did attempt to leave PALO could then arrest the citizen for attempting to steal government property.....the handcuffs.

(*chuckle*)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I think that PALO does not believe that a citizen he lawfully detains, which he considers to not be under arrest, would be free to end a encounter with him and thus the citizen would, obviously, not be free to leave. If the citizen did attempt to leave PALO could then arrest the citizen for attempting to steal government property.....the handcuffs.

(chuckle)

On a more serious note: ...as if government had any standing to complain when it stole the money to buy the handcuffs.

I love it. :lol: