D.Alaska: Handcuffing def to take to FBI office for interview an arrest, no matter what the policy says

Handcuffing the defendant and transporting him to the FBI office was an arrest under Kaupp v. Texas. The fact that’s policy is irrelevant. “The fact that it is FBI policy to handcuff defendants being transported in FBI vehicles is irrelevant. Kaupp, 538 U.S. at 632. The test for whether, and to what extent, a defendant has been seized under a Fourth Amendment analysis is objective. See Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 574, 108 S. Ct. 1975, 100 L. Ed. 2d 565 (1988). The Fourth Amendment does not bend to ‘law enforcement practices—even practices set by rule.
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 172, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008).” United States v. Saelee, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22867 (D. Alaska Feb. 15, 2017).