{"id":41618,"date":"2020-01-05T00:00:54","date_gmt":"2020-01-05T05:00:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=41618"},"modified":"2020-01-04T10:03:22","modified_gmt":"2020-01-04T15:03:22","slug":"d-neb-handcuffing-on-rs-to-assure-safety-and-maintain-the-status-quo-reasonable-and-not-a-de-facto-arrest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=41618","title":{"rendered":"D.Neb.: Handcuffing on RS to assure safety and maintain the status quo reasonable and not a de facto arrest"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Handcuffing a person on reasonable suspicion just to protect the officer\u2019s safety and maintain the status quo is not unreasonable. United States v. Mayfield, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 520 (D. Neb. Jan. 3, 2020).<\/p>\n<p>While the exclusionary rule can apply to forfeiture proceedings instigated by unreasonable border seizures because they are quasi criminal proceedings, United States v. Modes, Inc., 16 C.I.T. 189, 787 F. Supp. 1466, 14 Int&#8217;l Trade Rep. (BNA) 1124 (Ct. Int\u2019l Trade 1992), this case does not involve a Fourth Amendment seizure, so Modes doesn\u2019t apply. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cit.uscourts.gov\/sites\/cit\/files\/20-3.pdf\">United States v. Harvic Int&#8217;l<\/a>, 2020 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 1 (Ct. Int\u2019l Trade Jan. 3, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Handcuffing a person on reasonable suspicion just to protect the officer\u2019s safety and maintain the status quo is not unreasonable. United States v. Mayfield, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 520 (D. Neb. Jan. 3, 2020). While the exclusionary rule can apply &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=41618\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,72,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exclusionary-rule","category-forfeiture","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41618","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=41618"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41618\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":41619,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41618\/revisions\/41619"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=41618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=41618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=41618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}