finding use of handcuffs during investigatory stop appropriate where suspects’ apparent attempt to elude officers and lack of cooperation once stopped justified belief that they posed a danger to officer safety
How later courts described this case
- finding use of handcuffs during investigatory stop appropriate where suspects’ apparent attempt to elude officers and lack of cooperation once stopped justified belief that they posed a danger to officer safety
- concluding use of handcuffs to ensure officer safety was a reasonable precaution during an investigatory detention where occupants of vehicle were “far from cooperative” and the officers were “unaware exactly what activities” the occupants had been involved in
- ruling officer did not unlawfully extend stop but rather “any extra length of time was due to [defendant’s] own actions”
- use of handcuffs during investigatory stop appropriate where suspects’ apparent attempt to elude officers and lack of cooperation once stopped justified belief that they posed a danger to officer safety
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, Justice,
dissents.
I respectfully dissent from part III(B) (The Use of the Handcuffs on DuValt Was a Reasonable Means to Execute the Investigatory Stop) and part III(C) (The Discovery of the Vial in DuValt’s Pocket and the Seizure of the Vial Did Not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution) of the Court’s opinion.
In my view, using the totality of the circumstances test employed in State v. Johns, 112 Idaho 873 , 736 P.2d 1327 (1987) and State v. Pannell, 127 Idaho 420 , 901 P.2d 1321 (1995), leads me to the conclusion that the handcuffing did constitute an arrest. In the present case there was no evidence of (1) prior or threatened violence, (2) the presence of weapons, (3) suspects outnumbering officers, or (4) investigation prior to handcuffing. In my view, Johns and Pannell require that the Court overturn the trial court’s determination that the handcuffing was a reasonable means to execute the investigatory stop. As I read Johns and Pannell , we do not apply a substantial and competent evidence standard to this finding, but review the correctness of the finding based on the totality of the circumstances.