holding that in determining whether handcuffing a suspect or drawing weapons during an investigative detention is reasonable, a court may consider factors such as whether the police “have information that the suspect is - 10 - currently armed” or whether “the stop closely follows a violent crime”
How later courts described this case
- holding that in determining whether handcuffing a suspect or drawing weapons during an investigative detention is reasonable, a court may consider factors such as whether the police “have information that the suspect is - 10 - currently armed” or whether “the stop closely follows a violent crime”
- holding that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for “highly intrusive” stop where the facts were that the plaintiffs “were both relatively young African–American men, that they were out together, and that their heights were in the same general range as the suspects’”
- finding that two suspects confronted by four officers and a drug dog, ordered out of their vehicle at gunpoint, handcuffed, and placed into separate police cars for five to twenty-five minutes were subject to arrest not Terry stop
- noting that when analyzing whether a Terry stop or arrest occurred, the court considers (1) the aggressiveness of the methods used by police and the degree to which the suspects liberty was restricted and (2) whether the officer had sulficient basis to fear for his safety warranting a more intrusive action
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
I agree with much of the majority’s analysis, but cannot join the opinion’s sociological disquisition on the racial prejudices of police officers. Although the events catalogued in the opinion, see, e.g., op. at 1182-83 n. 1, are highly troubling, they are not part of the record in this case. Defendants were not sued because of all the sins and crimes committed by all law enforcement officers against all people of color, though surely there have been many. Defendants were accused of a specific constitutional violation, which was amply proven. As the majority notes, the facts were egregious; we need make no reference to any other cases or circumstances to conclude that the conduct of the police here fell shockingly below the standards of decency in a civilized society. By straining so mightily to reach its conclusion, the majority gives the impression that this is a hard case. The only hard thing about it is figuring out why defendants— having been hit with surprisingly modest damages — chose to appeal.