Handcuffing During Temporary Detention
Does the use of handcuffs turn a temporary detention situation into an arrest?
by Robert T. Thetford, JD
Handcuffing a suspect after a temporary detention (Terry Stop) is generally considered an arrest unless exceptional circumstances exist. Bradley v. State, 494 So.2d 750 (Ala. Cr. App., 1985), affirmed 494 So. 2d 772 (Ala. 1986). The test for arrest is whether or not a reasonable person, in the suspect's position, would have understood that he was under arrest Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3151 (1984).
This is particularly so when the officer testifies that the suspect was not under arrest but that he was handcuffed, with no reason given for the handcuffing. Lamar v. State, 578 So. 2d 1382 (Ala. Cr. App., 1991). This will be ruled an arrest every time.
This does not mean, however, that an arrest takes place every time an officer handcuffs a suspect he has placed under temporary detention. Examples where courts have held no arrest are as follows:
1. The suspect voluntarily accompanied the officer to the police station and was placed in handcuffs because of departmental policy, Darden v. State, 571 So. 2d 1272 (Ala. Cr. App., 1990). This was a close call and the court made it clear that departmental policy should not be used as an excuse - there generally must be more.
2. Handcuffing after the suspect had disobeyed an order to raise his hands and had made furtive gestures, U.S. v. Taylor, 716 F. 2d 701 (9th Cir., 1983).
3. Handcuffing of two men suspected of armed bank robbery where a third man was suspected to be in the vicinity and the suspects appeared extremely nervous, U.S. v. Bautista, 684 F. 2d 1286 (9th Cir., 1982).
4. Handcuffing in light of the suspect's flight and the violent nature of the suspected crime: rape, State v. Friederick, 663 P. 2d 122 (1983).
5. Handcuffing where the officer was informed that the suspect had threatened to kill someone and the officer verified the suspect's violent behavior, U.S. v. Merkley, 988 F. 2d 1062 (10th Cir., 1993).
6. Handcuffing of an armed robbery suspect where the officer feared that an accomplice might be hiding in the suspect's car, U.S. v. Saffeels, 982 F. 2d 1199 (8th Cir., 1992).
7. Handcuffing where the officer could reasonably anticipate he might have to go to the aid of his fellow officers, U.S. v. Crittendon, 883 F. 2d 326 (4th Cir., 1989).
Even if handcuffs are properly used on a suspect during a temporary detention, they should be removed as soon as it is safe to do so. A recent Florida case held that the continued use of handcuffs after the suspect had received a pat-down and no weapons were found was illegal. The court stressed that the suspect had offered no resistance, did not make any threats and was not particularly belligerent, Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla., 1992).
TRAINING TIP : If handcuffs are used in a temporary detention situation, the officer must have a good reason for doing so and should make a notation of the reason. The officer should advise the suspect of the reasons for the handcuffing and the fact that the suspect is not under arrest. Further, the officer should tell the suspect that the handcuffs will be taken off as soon as it is safe or possible to do so.