Cal.4th: Defendant’s handcuffing was unjustified just because he was taller than the officer

Defendant’s handcuffing was unreasonable and unnecessary under the circumstances, and the officer’s testimony could show no basis for it. People v. Stier, 168 Cal. App. 4th 21, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 77 (4th Dist. 2008):

Generally, handcuffing a suspect during a detention has only been sanctioned in cases where the police officer has a reasonable basis for believing the suspect poses a present physical threat or might flee. (In re Antonio B., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 442.) The more specific the information an officer has about a suspect’s identity, dangerousness, and flight risk, the more reasonable a decision to detain the suspect in handcuffs will be. (Washington v. Lambert, supra, 98 F.3d at p. 1190.) Circumstances in which handcuffing has been determined to be reasonably necessary for the detention include when: (1) the suspect is uncooperative; (2) the officer has information the suspect is currently armed; (3) the officer has information the suspect is about to commit a violent crime; (4) the detention closely follows a violent crime by a person matching the suspect’s description and/or vehicle; (5) the suspect acts in a manner raising a reasonable possibility of danger or flight; or (6) the suspects outnumber the officers. (Id. at pp. 1189–1190.)

In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution at the suppression hearing does not establish Leahy had a reasonable basis for believing Stier posed a present safety or flight risk when Leahy handcuffed Stier. Although Leahy was conducting a narcotics investigation and knew narcotics users and dealers are sometimes armed, Leahy did not believe Stier had any narcotics. More importantly, Leahy did not have any specific, articulable facts suggesting Stier was armed. Leahy also did not have any information suggesting Stier had or was about to commit a violent crime. Instead, Leahy handcuffed Stier primarily because Stier was four to five inches taller than Leahy and Leahy “felt uncomfortable” about the height differential.

Defendant’s admission that he had marijuana on him during an illegal patdown for “officer safety” when he had no fear of defendant having a weapon was also suppressed because there was no intervening event. W.D.H. v. State, 16 So. 3d 121 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008), Released for Publication July 29, 2009.Writ of certiorari denied Ex parte Laakkonen, 2009 Ala. LEXIS 76 (Ala. Apr. 24, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.