HELP!! Question about handcuffing and excessive force!

[stevenseq]

Hello all,

Here's the scenario:

An officer is dispatched to a 459 silent alarm at a local business. He is informed by dispatch that there may possibly be an RP on scene. When he approaches, the RP comes up to him and states that they are the owner and a person is probably still inside. Officer has RP stay with a cover unit prior to making entry into the building. Oficer makes entry and clears the building... nobody is inside. Having been dispatched to a possible 459 in progress and not knowing for certain who his RP really is, officer asks subject if they have any weapons or contraband, gets CONSENT TO SEARCH from subject, tells subject they are placing handcuffs on temporarily for safety while conducting pat search (only 1 cover unit during search. other units inside building incase re-entry is warranted), search comes up empty and subject is the lawful business owner, as they stated.

QUESTION: Is the officer using excessive force by handcuffing during pat search???

Please note the following:
- prior to entering the building, RP is not identified because officer believes a crime is in progress and RP says suspect may still be inside. A cover unit is left with the reporting party until identification can be made.
- during the officers arrival and during questioning, subject was repeatedly asked to please keep hands out of pockets. Kept putting hands into pockets.
- Officer believed that RP might not be who they say they are. Possibly the suspect, because there was nobody inside the building.
- Officer gets consent to search and explains the reason for handcuffing. subect is okay with the handcuffing. Only 1 assisting cover officer during pat search. Other units inside building.
- officer conducts terry pat and subject is promptly un-handcuffed.

What do you think? Fair or unfair? Did the ends justify the means or was the force used excessive?

Does anyone know where I can find case case law to support the officers decision?


The reason I ask all of this is because I am currently in the Academy, with graduation next week on the 3rd. I had a mishap during scenario remedial testing and I'm trying my hardest to back my decision to handcuff. My rebuttal is due monday and if it flies, I graduate... If it doesn't... You get the deal. It's been a tough 6 months and I'm going to fight tooth and nail to graduate with my class. Thank you all and I appreciate the help!

[Chef_Au]

One thing I find with academys is that the instructor is always right, even when they are wrong, they are right.

I am sure there is a reason whether it be by law, procedure or officer safety. We weren' t there to watch so I doubt we can comment.

Who knows, did you use gloves, did you get your head too close to his shoes so he could kick. WEre you turned weapon side away etc?

Lot of variables

[cntryboy0531]

Hello all,

Here's the scenario:

An officer is dispatched to a 459 silent alarm at a local business. He is informed by dispatch that there may possibly be an RP on scene. When he approaches, the RP comes up to him and states that they are the owner and a person is probably still inside. Officer has RP stay with a cover unit prior to making entry into the building. Oficer makes entry and clears the building... nobody is inside. Having been dispatched to a possible 459 in progress and not knowing for certain who his RP really is, officer asks subject if they have any weapons or contraband, gets CONSENT TO SEARCH from subject, tells subject they are placing handcuffs on temporarily for safety while conducting pat search (only 1 cover unit during search. other units inside building incase re-entry is warranted), search comes up empty and subject is the lawful business owner, as they stated.

QUESTION: Is the officer using excessive force by handcuffing during pat search???

Please note the following:
- prior to entering the building, RP is not identified because officer believes a crime is in progress and RP says suspect may still be inside. A cover unit is left with the reporting party until identification can be made.
- during the officers arrival and during questioning, subject was repeatedly asked to please keep hands out of pockets. Kept putting hands into pockets.
- Officer believed that RP might not be who they say they are. Possibly the suspect, because there was nobody inside the building.
- Officer gets consent to search and explains the reason for handcuffing. subect is okay with the handcuffing. Only 1 assisting cover officer during pat search. Other units inside building.
- officer conducts terry pat and subject is promptly un-handcuffed.

What do you think? Fair or unfair? Did the ends justify the means or was the force used excessive?

Does anyone know where I can find case case law to support the officers decision?


The reason I ask all of this is because I am currently in the Academy, with graduation next week on the 3rd. I had a mishap during scenario remedial testing and I'm trying my hardest to back my decision to handcuff. My rebuttal is due monday and if it flies, I graduate... If it doesn't... You get the deal. It's been a tough 6 months and I'm going to fight tooth and nail to graduate with my class. Thank you all and I appreciate the help!

Your instructor is correct IMO. Handcuff's are a use of force, and in this case, it's an excessive use of one. You recieved prior information that a reportee, keyholder, whoever, is probably on scene. You have backup with you at all times, and even have a cover officer with you during the pat down. Where is your need to restrain him when you have multiple officers on scene, and you really don't have anything to go on that makes you think he's not who he says he is other than the fact that no one was inside the building. You have a right to identify him, but not to restain him.

Case law does dictate considerations when placing someone in handcuffs temporarily. How many officers on scene, your size versus his, his demeanor, plus other factors that would lead you to believe he's committed a crime.

Instructor is right in my opinion. You don't have grounds to handcuff him.

[Samuel]

Hello all,

Here's the scenario:

An officer is dispatched to a 459 silent alarm at a local business. He is informed by dispatch that there may possibly be an RP on scene. When he approaches, the RP comes up to him and states that they are the owner and a person is probably still inside. Officer has RP stay with a cover unit prior to making entry into the building. Oficer makes entry and clears the building... nobody is inside. Having been dispatched to a possible 459 in progress and not knowing for certain who his RP really is, officer asks subject if they have any weapons or contraband, gets CONSENT TO SEARCH from subject, tells subject they are placing handcuffs on temporarily for safety while conducting pat search (only 1 cover unit during search. other units inside building incase re-entry is warranted), search comes up empty and subject is the lawful business owner, as they stated.

QUESTION: Is the officer using excessive force by handcuffing during pat search???
Depends on what your department's policies/definitions are on Force, Excessive Force, and Handcuffing/Searching.

Please note the following:
- prior to entering the building, RP is not identified because officer believes a crime is in progress and RP says suspect may still be inside. A cover unit is left with the reporting party until identification can be made.
- during the officers arrival and during questioning, subject was repeatedly asked to please keep hands out of pockets. Kept putting hands into pockets.
- Officer believed that RP might not be who they say they are. Possibly the suspect, because there was nobody inside the building.
- Officer gets consent to search and explains the reason for handcuffing. subect is okay with the handcuffing. Only 1 assisting cover officer during pat search. Other units inside building.
- officer conducts terry pat and subject is promptly un-handcuffed.

What do you think? Fair or unfair? Did the ends justify the means or was the force used excessive?
As Chef pointed out - it doesn't really matter what WE think. We weren't there to see you in action and we don't know what your policies/procedures are. Fair/unfair with respect to What? (fair/unfair is Subjective). Again, whether or not the force used, if any, was excessive or not depends on the policies you're working with/following AND, you should be VERY careful about going down the "ends justify the means" road.

Does anyone know where I can find case case law to support the officers decision?
You can start by Googling Detention vs Arrest. Also research your policy(ies) on Handcuffing.

The reason I ask all of this is because I am currently in the Academy, with graduation next week on the 3rd. I had a mishap during scenario remedial testing and I'm trying my hardest to back my decision to handcuff. My rebuttal is due monday and if it flies, I graduate... If it doesn't... You get the deal. It's been a tough 6 months and I'm going to fight tooth and nail to graduate with my class. Thank you all and I appreciate the help!

At least you're being honest about what you're asking and why.

I handle these types of calls on a daily basis. Without going too much into tactics/procedures let me just say that I would have remediated you also - and not for some ticky tack consensual handcuffing issue. I read maybe 3-4 mistakes you made - the biggest one being you did not control/secure a potential suspect right from the get go. IF you had ANY suspicion that the guy you met outside was a possible suspect or presented any sort of danger, you should have done your handcuffing/searching at the start - not After leaving him alone, unsecured, with a single officer outside while you search the building. You're lucky he WAS the R/P in the scenario and not some POS who pulled out a knife, stabbed your partner outside and stole his gun, shot you and the rest of you in your backs, and stole a squad to get away... And IF you thought he WAS a legitimate R/P, then why would you hassle him with handcuffing and searching??? Get it???

[Curt581]

Your instructor is correct IMO. Handcuff's are a use of force, and in this case, it's an excessive use of one. You recieved prior information that a reportee, keyholder, whoever, is probably on scene. You have backup with you at all times, and even have a cover officer with you during the pat down. Where is your need to restrain him when you have multiple officers on scene, and you really don't have anything to go on that makes you think he's not who he says he is other than the fact that no one was inside the building. You have a right to identify him, but not to restain him.

Case law does dictate considerations when placing someone in handcuffs temporarily. How many officers on scene, your size versus his, his demeanor, plus other factors that would lead you to believe he's committed a crime.

Instructor is right in my opinion. You don't have grounds to handcuff him.

Huh?

Since when did placing someone in handcuffs become a Use Of Force? Handcuffing appears no where in the Use of Force Continuum that I am aware of. Having to struggle or fight with someone to get them into handcuffs, yes. Simply placing handcuffs on a compliant subject, no.

We need "grounds" to handcuff somebody now? Do you mean to articulate a reasonable justification, or do you mean an actual legal basis as dictated by statute? Does handcuffing now legally equate to an arrest requiring probable cause?

The presence of back-up, cover officers, or multiple officers should not automatically preclude placing someone in handcuffs when encountered in suspicious or potentially dangerous circumstances. I've had to place people in handcuffs for several reasons, sometimes with no PC to arrest or reasonable suspicion. I've handcuffed and pat searched people I was giving a ride to, most often people going to a mental health facility for evaluation. No PC or RS there, but an easily understandable and prudent action.

I just explained to the individual why I was doing it. I remember reading a news article some years ago about two officers giving a ride to an elderly man who ran out of gas. During the ride, he inexplicibly pulled out a .357 and shot them both in the back of the head.

Did I miss some legal update?

I'm not trying to 'call you out', just asking for elaboration.

[Laww]

Huh?

Since when did placing someone in handcuffs become a Use Of Force? Handcuffing appears no where in the Use of Force Continuum that I am aware of. Having to struggle or fight with someone to get them into handcuffs, yes. Simply placing handcuffs on a compliant subject, no.

We need "grounds" to handcuff somebody now? Do you mean to articulate a reasonable justification, or do you mean an actual legal basis as dictated by statute? Does handcuffing now legally equate to an arrest requiring probable cause?

The presence of back-up, cover officers, or multiple officers should not automatically preclude placing someone in handcuffs when encountered in suspicious or potentially dangerous circumstances. I've had to place people in handcuffs for several reasons, sometimes with no PC to arrest or reasonable suspicion. I've handcuffed and pat searched people I was giving a ride to, most often people going to a mental health facility for evaluation. No PC or RS there, but an easily understandable and prudent action.

I just explained to the individual why I was doing it. I remember reading a news article some years ago about two officers giving a ride to an elderly man who ran out of gas. During the ride, he inexplicibly pulled out a .357 and shot them both in the back of the head.

Did I miss some legal update?

I'm not trying to 'call you out', just asking for elaboration.

I think Sam captured it best. Procedurally, (particular departmental policies not withstanding) I think the "investigatory detention" of the "suspect" should have occurred up front. Once you have made certain assumptions and carried on with the reason you were called there to begin with, it's a little late to go backwards in time and treat someone who has already demonstrated that they are, in fact, the complainant, or someone other than the suspect, as the suspect. A Terry "frisk" should have been conducted at the onset, if there was a doubt as to who the officer was talking to. Absent probable cause or enough RAS to get you to a detention, then you are walking a very fine line of an "unreasonable seizure" of the person and a violation of their 4th amendment rights.

This scenario, while being able to go a bunch of ways, and depending on state laws, agency policies and a literal endless amount of variables, at face value, should certainly not be cause in and of itself, to be a reason for termination from a police academy. You could lock judges and lawyers in a room for hours and still not have a resolution based on their vastly different experience and interpretations of the Constitution.

The only thing I would add is at least as far as most departments I know, and in almost everything I have ever read concerning any search from a vehicle to a single level dwelling to a large high school, you NEVER SEARCH ALONE!

[stevenseq]

Thank you all for the insight.

Among other reasons, I handcuffed my subject while doing a terry pat because during questioning, the subject repeatedly put their hands in their pockets after being asked to keep them out. The encounter was consensual and explained that she was not being arrested and was free to leave. I explained the handcuffs were for safety reasons.

I appreciate the help. I realize that another 6 months in the academy will be strenuous, however, this is the career choice that I have made and it is what I want to do with my life and because of that, I'll come back and come back strong!

[stevenseq]

I just explained to the individual why I was doing it. I remember reading a news article some years ago about two officers giving a ride to an elderly man who ran out of gas. During the ride, he inexplicibly pulled out a .357 and shot them both in the back of the head.

Can you tell me where I can find more information on this incident? Where did this happen and who were the involved parties? Thank you.

[Laww]

Can you tell me where I can find more information on this incident? Where did this happen and who were the involved parties? Thank you.

Steveseq,

You seem like you have your head on your shoulders. If you are writing up why you did what you did, then just say what you told us. Then I would add how you can now see how it could be interpreted other ways and it was educational to you. This occupation has a bunch of outstanding individuals with good moral fiber and character. You made a decision based on the information at hand. They may be testing your resolve. Defend your decision and the fact that you felt so strongly about it that you were trying to gather more facts and case law. You'll be a fine addition to the force one day. Just keep your mind open.

Laww

[G35 Mass]

With one officer for cover, the cuffs w/out any further indication of him being a threat may be excessive. Your suspect is missing. You've got a guy you've stumbled upon who CLAIMS to be the reporting party. But you've got no indication that he IS the suspect or 1) unlawfully armed or 2) armed and dangerous. In this instance, the cover officer w/out physical restraings is sufficient. But own your decision.

That being said, I've never conducted a pat/frisk alone w/out the party being in cuffs, but I clearly articulate why I'm putting them in cuffs before I place them on the subject, and report it accurately. I tell them something to the effect of "While I search you, I'm going to put you in cuffs. I'll take them off as soon as I'm done. You're NOT under arrest, but if you move or lose your balance while searching you I don't want to think you're trying to get away. This is for your safety". It's all about how you say it to the subject, and how you document.

Back to this "If it doesn't... You get the deal."... Really? They'll bounce you after 23 weeks because you cuffed someone that maybe you shouldn't have? Wow.

[cntryboy0531]

Huh?

Since when did placing someone in handcuffs become a Use Of Force? Handcuffing appears no where in the Use of Force Continuum that I am aware of. Having to struggle or fight with someone to get them into handcuffs, yes. Simply placing handcuffs on a compliant subject, no.

We need "grounds" to handcuff somebody now? Do you mean to articulate a reasonable justification, or do you mean an actual legal basis as dictated by statute? Does handcuffing now legally equate to an arrest requiring probable cause?

The presence of back-up, cover officers, or multiple officers should not automatically preclude placing someone in handcuffs when encountered in suspicious or potentially dangerous circumstances. I've had to place people in handcuffs for several reasons, sometimes with no PC to arrest or reasonable suspicion. I've handcuffed and pat searched people I was giving a ride to, most often people going to a mental health facility for evaluation. No PC or RS there, but an easily understandable and prudent action.

I just explained to the individual why I was doing it. I remember reading a news article some years ago about two officers giving a ride to an elderly man who ran out of gas. During the ride, he inexplicibly pulled out a .357 and shot them both in the back of the head.

Did I miss some legal update?

I'm not trying to 'call you out', just asking for elaboration.

I'll have to hunt down the case law I read last year, but it was in regards to a civil rights law suit where the court sided with the defendant and awarded damages to them, against the individual LEO's, and the agency itself for handcuffing a few people because they simply thought they were suspects, with no real articuable reasoning (such as this one).

Me stating "grounds" was not meant as a legal basis for an arrest or from a state statute, but at least an articuable reason for handcuffing someone for officer safety. IMO, this case, there was none. If I handcuffed everybody I came across on an alarm call when I last worked patrol, with a possible burglary call just because they were the only ones on scene, I'd be throwing people in handcuffs all day long. Not saying you shouldn't do it when you have an articulable reason, as I've done that before. But, in cases such as these, where you have multiple officers on scene, you have prior information that a reportee is on scene, and little to no evidence that the person has comitted a crime or poses a danger to you other than the fact that you checked a building when there is no suspect in the building (is there actually a burglary or is this a false alarm?), where is your threat that you feel you need to handcuff him and deprive him of his freedom to move about? Especially when every burglary that I have worked that stemmed from an alarm, both silent and audible, the suspects were on scene for only minutes before running like he!!.

At least in my state, handcuffs are a use of force. A very minor one, but it is a use of force, just as presence is on the use of force matrix we use.

That's just my .02 on the matter.

[stevenseq]

Back to this "If it doesn't... You get the deal."... Really? They'll bounce you after 23 weeks because you cuffed someone that maybe you shouldn't have? Wow.

Yes. I was talking with one of my T.O. told us that when he was in the academy, there was a guy who failed a remedial test two days before graduation. The next day he was bounced out. The day before graduation.

If that is to happen to me, I do understand and I also appreciate how they gave me the opportunity to try to make a defense. Some would say differently, but I know that the Coordinator is not a bad guy and I know that he is not doing this to be evil or malicious. I understand fully that there is a STANDARD and that standard MUST be upheld, even if my score is only two points off.

It's tough to fathom doing it over again, especially when I'm only 4 days away from graduation, but I'm not a quitter and if I have to, I will come back and I will come back strong. Thats just the way it is =)

[ChesCopPodz]

Instead of handcuffs, after the pat search, I'd put him in the back seat of the car if you were still suspicious. You state that you were nervous about him putting his hands in his pockets, hence asking for and getting consent to search him. Im ok with handcuffing him for the search if you've really got a hunch about the guy, but if it was only for safety during the search, they probably should have come off when you found no weapons.

A lot more consensual when they agree to get in your car, then open and close the door themself to do so.

That being said, if you've got a real bad feeling about someone, go ahead and cuff them up until youve investigated them enough to know one way or the other.

[ChesCopPodz]

Oh, and by the way, how many times had you done this scenario? Both academies I went to, you had a couple of tries to work though it, not "once and you're done"

[ChesCopPodz]

Ok, last time. I do believe country is right. I remember reading that handcuffing is a level of force. However, it all comes down to articulation. Run through all the reasons you decided to cuff him. Was he acting more nervous than you woud expect the keyholder to be? Did he approach from a wierd area like from around back with no cars out in the parking lot? Was he familiar with the alarm codes? Able to tell you what company called him? Able to give you details about the inside of the building? Unable to ID himself? etc