This investigatory stop was really conducted as a full blown felony arrest, and it was unreasonable because of a lack of probable cause. The subsequent consent was tainted. United States v. Castro-Carbajal, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178217 (D. Utah December 13, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In this case, agents used a cumulatively high level of force during the investigatory stop. Five to seven agents surrounded the defendants, three to five of them with their guns drawn, and ordered defendants out of the truck. Gonzales was immediately handcuffed, placed in a police car, and Mirandized, while Castro was Mirandized and informed that he was not free to leave, on the side of the road.<\/p>\n
The government’s position that such force was necessary because the suspects had ties to Mexico and a confidential informant feared for his or her safety is not persuasive. The officers outnumbered the defendants, the stop was made during the day, the agents did not have any tips suggesting that the defendants were armed or dangerous, and the defendants complied with police orders. The government has failed to meet its burden of showing that, under the totality of the circumstances, the use of firearms and the interrogation of Gonzales while handcuffed in the back of a police car were reasonably necessary for officer safety.<\/p>\n
Because the specific nature of this stop was not justified under the Terry doctrine, we must treat it as an arrest, requiring probable cause. The government makes no effort to argue that it had probable cause to make an arrest at the time the officers initially stopped the defendants or at any point prior to the discovery of heroin in Gonzales’s shoes. Indeed, no such argument could be made on this record. Thus, the court must conclude that Castro and Gonzales were illegally arrested.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading