SSCC #415&#416–Lincoln County WY

Sorry, cuffs are not how you detain someone.  Unsurprisingly the department is defending their little tyrant.  This is a perfect example of a USC 18.232 violation.

Total the officer arrested him for 45 minutes without cause.  Unsurprisingly the dash cam footage from both officers has been “lost”.

Now as a side note, when asked if you have any weapons your response should be, “I have nothing illegal.”

State Sponsored Criminal #415: Corry Bassett

State Sponsored Criminal #416: Rob Andazola

Because handcuffing someone isn’t arrest unless you decide that it’s arrest.  Never mind the fact that force of restraint isn’t legal except in arrest and the argument for the officers safety falls flat unless he places anyone carrying a firearm in cuffs during a traffic stop.  Further once his information was run, there was no longer a need for detaining the individual and he should have been left to return on his way.

Tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

About TMM

TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms. Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.

3 Responses to SSCC #415&#416–Lincoln County WY

  1. Boyd says:

    He shouldn’t have been cuffed. I predict some material prosperity in this guys future & I hope he shares some of it with SAF or a similar org.
    For myself though, when he first asked, I would have said something like “you bet, most everyone should”. I don’t see a personal legal (or a wider civil rights) disadvantage in that. I don’t see how that could be mistaken for a consent to search. And I like to talk RKBA even with folks in uniform. What am I missing?

    • Barron says:

      Yeah, my one complaint with how the rider handled the situation was he provided an answer unrelated to the actual question. Hence why I said, “I have nothing illegal”. While the officer has every right to ask the question he doesn’t have anything that can guarantee a full response.

      For example if a felon was carrying a firearm he does not have to self incriminate.

      There are a few parts of the case that have me a bit nervous, but as he was handcuffed for 45 minutes even after running his ID and seeing he in fact posed no danger, the argument for cuffs while detaining him is long gone. The cuffs may only be used while the perceived threat of danger exists.

      As for how it could be mistaken for a consent to search, many officers will trying and say “well he said he had a weapon so I wanted to make sure he didn’t have any more” while then using your answer in the affirmative was a consent to search. My rule is to address the question explicitly while avoiding yes or no. If I do use yes or no, there is sentence following it. Not many cops do this, but certainly officers like the one he dealt with would. Further the only officers I’ve encountered who ask about weapons are ones that are petty little tyrants.

      Your armed, I’m armed, freaking deal with it and expect it. Treat me like you would treat a fellow officer and all will be well.

  2. Spanky says:

    This makes me want to chew glass. The Captain was polite and following all laws. If that isn’t enough for the cops, they need a new job.