Handcuffing the defendant and transporting him to the FBI office was an arrest under Kaupp v. Texas. The fact that\u2019s policy is irrelevant. \u201cThe 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 \u2018law enforcement practices\u2014even practices set by rule.
\nVirginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 172, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008).\u201d United States v. Saelee, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22867 (D. Alaska Feb. 15, 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Handcuffing the defendant and transporting him to the FBI office was an arrest under Kaupp v. Texas. The fact that\u2019s policy is irrelevant. \u201cThe fact that it is FBI policy to handcuff defendants being transported in FBI vehicles is irrelevant. … Continue reading