I just skimmed all of this but it sounds a lot like Unlawful Imprisonment by the police to me.

 

I am not big on taking legal action against anyone (only the lawyers win most of the time) but I may consult with one here if I was one of the patrons.

 

That's why I'm skeptical of the "locked doors" statement. If they did lock the doors and search then lots of folks have legit complaints. Just a video of a guy getting patted down isn't enough for me to believe the rest of the accusations

That's why I'm skeptical of the "locked doors" statement. If they did lock the doors and search then lots of folks have legit complaints. Just a video of a guy getting patted down isn't enough for me to believe the rest of the accusations

 

Wouldn't they need a reason to frisk everyone ?

It's usually best to get both sides on stuff like this before forming an opinion. People tend to exaggerate or use incorrect terms.

 

So far the word searched is used instead of the proper term "frisked/pat down"

 

Wouldn't they likely need keys to lock the doors? More likely is officers were staged at the exits.

 

People loosely throw around terms that don't reflect what actually occurs. IE. I've seem people say police "used deadly force" for simply upholstering a weapon.

 

Unfortunately the media cares more about mouse clicks and getting people fired than actual truth. This goes for all occupations, coaches, elected officials, business managers, athletes, etc.

 

Well, it depends on if we're talking shag or velvet. Velour is good.

Wouldn't they need a reason to frisk everyone ?

 

Well I guess you missed my post saying they'd have a beef if they frisked everyone...

Not really a trampling of the Fourth, but I know that's how you see it.

 

He told them he was going to do it, did anyone refuse? If no one refused or said no, then they tactically gave their approval to be patted down.

 

There are cases every day where police officers ask to search a vehicle or enter a building and they are refused permission. Then they only have two options apply for a warrant or walk away.

 

 

JD, you know I love you, but I think you are mistaken about the bolded. If you are submitting to an officer's show of authority when a reasonable person wouldn't have felt free to leave, then you'll probably be found to have been detained. If so, there really isn't a set time limit on how long it can lawfully last, but it "must be no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop", and has to be as minimally intrusive as possible.

 

Yes, officers don't have to tell people that they're free to go, but if you make a statement like, "We're going to start over here and work our way around, and if you go by it and you're clean, you get to go out the front door.", then you probably aren't going to have a very good argument that those were voluntary searches. It sounds like he was telling them that if they tried to leave anyway, then they'd be arrested.

 

If you still see this as a voluntary search, think about it like this: you are at a football game tonight and an officer walks up and says, "I'm going to search you". It's not going to fly that it was voluntary when he does just because you didn't say, "no".

 

Think of all the problems it'd cause if people were able to question whether they had to obey an officer's commands. You think some of these "obstruction of justice", "failure to identify", "resisting arrest", and things like that are going to stick (even less than they do now) when people can make a good argument that they didn't know that they had to follow orders because you don't have to listen to everything officers say.

Know your rights. It is not law enforcement's job to tell you what they are until you hear, "you have the right to remain silent...."