|
Reasonableness of Handcuffing during a valid “Terry Stop”
By Jack Ryan
Does handcuffing during a “Terry Stop” transform
the stop into a full-blown arrest, which requires the officer to have
probable cause rather than the lesser requirement of reasonable suspicion?
A case from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
determined that the application of handcuffs does not automatically turn
an otherwise valid “Terry Stop” into a full-blown arrest.
In Riordan and Bruzy v. Trooper Joyner et. al, 2005 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 5312 (Dist. CT. 2005) a trial court reviewed the stop and
temporary detention of Kathleen Bruzy and Mark Riordan by the Connecticut
State Police. On June 28, 2002, the state police received a call from
a man named Henry Angelico, who reported that he was behind a car on the
highway and that he heard a loud noise come from the vehicle and had observed
smoke coming from the driver’s window. Mr. Angelico thought that
a shot had been fired from the vehicle. In addition to identifying himself,
Mr. Angelico described the vehicle and provided his license plate. He
remained behind the vehicle and turned on his emergency flashers as the
troopers approached so that they would more easily spot the vehicle. Kathleen
Bruzy, who had just left her workplace, was driving the vehicle in question.
Her boyfriend, Mark Riordan, was driving in a separate vehicle in tandem
with Bruzy.
The troopers pulled Bruzy over and conducted a high-risk
traffic stop. Riordan, upon seeing the stop, pulled over ahead of Bruzy
but did not get out of his vehicle. The trooper pointed a shotgun at Bruzy
as she exited her vehicle. A trooper patted-down Bruzy and handcuffed
her while additional troopers searched her vehicle. Two police officers
from North Haven Police Department approached Riordan who acknowledged
that Bruzy was his girlfriend. The officers removed Riordan from his vehicle
and handcuffed him. Other officers searched Riordan’s vehicle for
weapons. During the search of Riordan’s vehicle, he twice complained
about the tightness of the handcuffs. Upon complaining the second time,
an officer checked and then loosened the handcuffs. When no weapons were
found Bruzy and Riordan were released and told that the man who had made
the report [they were?] was sorry. Riordan and Bruzy then filed a lawsuit
alleging that they were illegally arrested and subject to excessive force.
The court first dealt with the issue of whether the use
of handcuffs changed the nature of the police contact from a investigatory
detention – only requiring reasonable suspicion – to a full-blown
arrest, which would require probable cause. In analyzing this issue, the
court looked at factors used by the United States Court of Appeal for
the 2nd Circuit in determining the line between a temporary detention
and an arrest. Among the factors examined were: the “amount of force
used by the police, the need for such force, and the extent to which an
individual’s freedom of movement was restrained, and in particular,
such factors as the number of agents involved, whether the target of the
stop was suspected of being armed, the duration of the stop, and the physical
treatment of the suspect, including whether or not handcuffs were used.” [citing
U.S. v. Vargas, 369 F.3d 98, 101 (2nd Cir. 2004)]. The court noted that
use of handcuffs during a “Terry Stop” is not the ordinary
course of events, but it does not necessarily change the event to an arrest “when
it [use of handcuffs] is a reasonable response to legitimate safety concerns
on the part of the investigating officers… Further, the fact that
the officers approached a stopped car with guns drawn in order to protect
themselves and bystanders on the street [does not] necessarily transmute
a ‘Terry stop’ into an arrest.”
In applying the law to the facts here, the court noted
that the troopers had information from an identified good-citizen
informant who remained on the scene during the police investigation. The
troopers
had no reason to believe that Mr. Angelico’s information regarding
Bruzy and her vehicle was unreliable. In looking at the
treatment of Riordan, the court noted that officers were aware that Riiordan’s
fiancé was
under investigation for firing a shot. “Although Riordan had not
been disruptive to the investigation, there was the potential
that he could do so. Objectively speaking, the justification for placing
Riordan
in handcuffs was twofold: (1) to prevent him from disrupting
the investigation of Bruzy, and (2) to determine if Riordan had any role
in the suspected
criminal activity.” The court found that the actions of the Troopers
and officers were reasonable with respect to Bruzy and
Riordan and notwithstanding the handcuffing, remained a “Terry stop” and
not a full-blown arrest. As such the officers were released from liability.
Jack Ryan
Jack Ryan is an attorney in Rhode Island, a graduate Juris Doctorate,
Cum Laude Suffolk University Law School. Jack has 20 years police experience
as a police officer with the Providence Police Department, Providence, RI.
Jack’s law degree and experience as a police officer gives
him the unique perspective of the legal and liability issues.
Jack is a former adjunct faculty member at Salve Regina University
and lectures frequently throughout the United States.
Jack is a Standing
Committee Member of the Homicide
Cold Case Review board.
|
