The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Alright, so today's questions is a little complex. So you got to bear with me on this one, I might need to take a little bit of your time to get through it. But the question is, is our orders to detain and transport the suspect back to the station for a formal interview? lawful. All right. So, alright, so not all states may have this, but there's still an interesting situation. So an officer from Missouri says that it is a common practice in Kansas City, Missouri, where the process the state prosecutor's issue in order A, it's called a stop order, or a PLI a person of interest order that's entered into the computer system. And when the person is found, they are then handcuffed, transported back to the station for a formal interview. Okay, so common practice. Now, it's this is not a fresh arrest, right? This is not, you know, where somebody got arrested and transported and, you know, we're gonna interview them. These are based off of these orders issued by the State prosecutors. Some of the officers feel that this is an unlawful practice. Right, that this is basically an unlawful arrest. And that you would have to have either an arrest warrant, probable cause or consent. Okay, so let's go through this. So first of all, let me say that if you have probable cause, to arrest the person, and, you know, the stop order is based on probable cause. We don't have an issue, I don't see the issue, because we can just call that an arrest, and just arrest the person. You see my point here. The only issue is going to be if the stop orders or P allies are based on reasonable suspicion or anything less than probable cause. So let me assume that that's what's going on. Again, now, it also talks about fresh PC, we don't have fresh PVC. I don't think it's gonna matter. I don't see the issue there. As long as you have probable cause, whether it's stale or fresh, if it's still probably caused, and there is a right to arrest the person. We can just call this stop order or poi an arrest warrant. Right. It may be it may be called it's not called an arrest warrant. But I think we just call it that, constitutionally, because it looks the same. That's what kind of looks like right. So if it's if these if these stoppers appeal wise or not based on probable cause, Houston, we have a problem. So let me just go through some I'm getting my source here from the great Wayne Lafave if you know, you've been in my classes, you know that Wayne Lafave is a God in in search and seizure, you know, history, and he's most cited and Prudential search and seizure expert, according to the US Supreme Court and so forth. And he has a treatise called the search and seizure treatise, right. So, here is a case where you see what this is a case in US versus Brignone. Ponce, for to to us. 873 1975. So, here's what the Supreme Court said about something like bringing bring the guy back to the police station, right. The detention of the petitioner was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest. Petitioner was not questioned briefly, where he was found. Instead, he was taken from a neighbor's home to a police car, transported to a police station and placed in an interrogation room sound familiar? He was never informed that he was free to go. And indeed, he would have been physically restrained if he had refused to accompany officers or had to try to escape their custody. So very similar to what's kind of going on in Missouri. It seems like the application of the Fourth Amendment's requirement of probable cause does not depend on whether an intrusion of this magnitude is termed an arrest under state law.
Right The mere facts that Petitioner was not told he was under arrest was not booked and would not have had an arrest record if the interrogation had proved fruitless. Well, not insignificant for all purposes, obviously, do not make Petitioner seizure even roughly anomalous to narrow the narrowly defined intrusions involved in Terry and its progeny. Indeed, any exception that could cover a seizure as intrusive as that in this case would threaten to swell the general rule that the Fourth Amendment seizures are reasonable only if based on probable cause. So that is our basic overall overarching rule that what is happening in Missouri is unconstitutional. If, if not based on probable cause, if it's based on probable cause, this is not the case. So that's important. Okay. Now, next, the courts around the country, including the Supreme Court, have either talked about directly or indirectly talked about using these orders, the judicial orders to take a person off the street, bring them back to the police station for fingerprinting lineups, hair samples, DNA, so forth. But all of them, according to Wayne Lafave have distinguished that from interrogation. Right. So, here's another example. The Dunaway court that's another Dunaway is another Supreme Court decision and Wanelo faves that when the Faith says the Dunaway court makes another issue about transporting people makes absolutely no mention of the statutes, court rules or appellate decisions discuss here and authorizing stationhouse attention on less than full probable cause for investigative purpose. Other you know, other than that, interrogation, right. Okay. So, here is my final. Okay, so we're good for, you know, lineups and so forth. Right. So the next question is, from a case I believe was from Atwater versus City of Lago Vista, US Supreme Court. So, the next question is whether a brief detention at the station is reasonable only with respect to certain types of investigate procedures. Davis Right. The US Supreme Court suggests that the answer is yes. For the court there said that such attention might comply with the Fourth Amendment, even though probable cause is lacking, because of the unique nature of the fingerprinting process. Yet, most of the provisions cited early permit investigate potential for many other types of other purposes as well, such as obtaining witness identification for use in lineups, photos, voice, exemplars, or handwriting exemplars obtaining fingerprints, or other prints or body measurements or impressions, obtaining specimens of such thing as blood, urine, urine, saliva, hair, or fingernails, and obtaining identification material from the surface of the body. Right. However, the court awful also emphasize that fingerprinting involves in all these other things, involves none of the probing into an individual's private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search. Right. So the takeaway is that we see no support, or very little, to say the least, right? I mean, that no, there's always something out there. But we see very little support that the US Supreme Court would uphold taking people off the street for an interrogation at the station house without probable cause. That is not the type of reasonable intrusion that courts have found with other things like the fingerprinting of DNA and so forth. So my answer is, if it's not based on probable cause, I would not do it unless my prosecutor can show me just first of all, backup, you know, if you're, if you're your prosecutors telling you to do something, just so you know, you do have some immunity. That comes with that. I mean, you're gonna point the finger to them. I mean, if they're telling you to do it, and you do it and you get sued
You point the finger at your prosecutor. And you say I'm doing it because they gave me a piece of paper that says the doing if the judge if this now wasn't clear in the comments, right? I've never seen these things before these penalize and stoppers. But if a judge signs off on it, you do it. Right. You do it. You don't second guess a judge. The judge is always right, until the Appellate Court tells them that they're wrong. Right. But as far as you're concerned, concerned, the judge is always correct. You just you do what the judge tells you always. Right. I mean, pretty much always. The prosecutor, of course, you know, they're not judges, they don't have the same power as a judge. But, you know, this is pretty easy. You call the prosecutor to say, look, I'm having some doubts on this. It doesn't seem legit. You know, I'm watching also this Blue Gold guy. He's saying he can't find any case law that authorizes snagging people off the street for interviews with without probable cause. So what's going on here? If they say, Well, look, no, we do have probable cause. That's our, that's what this is based on. Then you say, okay, good. I can do it then. Right? That's different. And they say, Well, no, we don't have probable cause. But this guy's as a person of interest. It's the same thing as if we need to fingerprints. Then you say, Well, look, I would love for you to kind of look at what Anthony saying here. And I'll give you the section of the treatise by Wayne Lafave. Most of your prosecutors will have access to this. It's 9.8. B. section, the section is called appearance at the station, absent ground store rest. So 9.8 B. Wayne Lafave search and cedar tree search and see a treatise. They can kind of look at that and make their own conclusion about whether or not the Constitution that's what I have for you. Very interesting question. Maybe not for everybody. But hey, you know what, this is still moving the ball forward. And these are great conversations. I'm out of here. But before I go, do me a favor, right. Like Wayne Lafave. Do me a favor, hit like, subscribe so I can show you my new videos. Share with your friends, right? That's all I'm asking. Is that too much? Probably not. Stay safe guys.
When it comes to law enforcement training, we are the gold standard, visit blue to gold.com or call 888-579-7796 to learn more about our training books and free webinars. Also, don't forget to like, subscribe and share this channel.