LA5: Handcuffing during a Terry stop was not an arrest

Defendant’s stop in a high crime area known for random shootings escalated from fear of a weapon, and handcuffing the defendant for officer safety did rise to an arrest. State v. Morton, 993 So. 2d 651 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2008):

Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are authorized to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of a Terry stop. State v. Porche, 943 So.2d at 339. Considering the totality of the circumstances, Officer Thomas was justified in his decision to handcuff defendant as a safety precaution; those actions did not rise to [Pg 9] the level of an arrest. See State v. Gray, 99-47 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/1/99), 738 So.2d 668, and State v. Enclade, 03-353 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/16/03), 858 So.2d 8, where this court found that the officer’s decision to handcuff the defendant during an investigatory stop was justified as a safety precaution and did not rise to the level of an arrest.

The trial court found that defendant did not consent to a search, but the appellate court disagreed, finding that, although the defendant had been blocked in by the police, his actions in responding to the nonconfrontational police showed consent. People v. Quagliata, 2008 NY Slip Op 6465, 53 A.D.3d 670, 861 N.Y.S.2d 792 (2d Dept. 2008)* (Comment: So much for the clearly erroneous rule and “heavy burden of proving the voluntariness of a defendant’s consent”.)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.