{"id":7863,"date":"2012-12-29T14:01:09","date_gmt":"2012-10-23T09:04:35","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-10-23T09:04:35","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7863","title":{"rendered":"CA11: Handcuffing on the ground at gunpoint not necessarily an arrest"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Taking defendant from his car at gunpoint and handcuffing him on the ground was reasonable under the circumstances, and it did not rise to the level of an arrest. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca10.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/11\/11-2204.pdf\">United States v. Salas-Garcia<\/a>, 698 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>By contrast, the officers in this case acted reasonably under the totality of circumstances. The &#8220;quantum of force&#8221; used to detain Salas-Garcia was reasonable under the circumstances. The officers in this case did not conduct a felony arrest of Salas-Garcia. As Agent Davis explained in his testimony, a felony stop is &#8220;a very heightened state of readiness&#8221; by the police, where the officers arrive in &#8220;several units with guns drawn, giving specific orders to an occupant of a vehicle to do certain things.&#8221; Aplee. Supp. App. at 96. But in this case, the patrol officers were only given instructions &#8220;to stop the car.&#8221; Id. As the district court noted, there is nothing in the record that suggests that the patrol officer who stopped Salas-Garcia &#8220;drew or displayed his weapon, forced Defendant to the ground, or employed restraints other than handcuffs.&#8221; Aplt. App. at 16-17.<\/p>\n<p>Given the limited amount of information that the Task Force agents and uniformed patrol officers had regarding Salas-Garcia, placing him in handcuffs was reasonable under the circumstances to ensure both officer and public safety. We have noted that &#8220;&#8221;[a]n officer in today&#8217;s reality has an objective, reasonable basis to fear for his or her life every time a motorist is stopped.'&#8221; United States v. Albert, 579 F.3d 1188, 1194 (10th Cir. 2009) &#8230;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7863\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7863","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7863","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7863\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}