Subject: Re: Police: 'No evidence' of excessive force in Michael Bennettincident
On 9/30/2017 7:05 AM, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 09/30/2017 07:52 AM, Bro. Edwards wrote:
>> Police said Friday they found "no evidence" that officers
> --- "I would have said" they violated the constitution because they
> have no power to handcuff and detain you without a warrant.
You are just flat out wrong on that statement!
"Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States
Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on
unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer
stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable
cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that
the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime
and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently
For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may
perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for
weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is
armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and
articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This
permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a
"stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk".
"The mere act of handcuffing a person does not transform a Terry stop
into an illegal arrest. People v. Colyar, 2013 IL 111835, ¶ 46. Rather,
the propriety of handcuffing a person during a Terry stop depends on the
circumstances of the case. Id. “It would be paradoxical to give police
the authority to detain pursuant to an investigatory stop yet deny them
the use of force that may be necessary to effectuate the detention.”
People v. Starks, 190 Ill. App. 3d 503, 509 (1989). Legitimate interests
in using handcuffs during a Terry stop include protecting law
enforcement officers, the public, or the suspect from the undue risk of
harm. People v. Arnold, 394 Ill. App. 3d 63, 72 (2009)."