D.Alaska: Handcuffing def to take to FBI office for interview an arrest, no matter what the policy says

D.Alaska: Handcuffing def to take to FBI office for interview an arrest, no matter what the policy says

by Hall

Fourth Amendment / 2017-02-25 11:00

Handcuffing the defendant and transporting him to the FBI office was an arrest under Kaupp v. Texas. The fact that’s policy is irrelevant. “The 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 ‘law enforcement practices—even practices set by rule.
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164, 172, 128 S. Ct. 1598, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008).” United States v. Saelee, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22867 (D. Alaska Feb. 15, 2017).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s