We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Moving Suspects During Detentions

I happened to be in a courtroom recently where the judge was hearing motions to suppress.  In one motion an officer testified that he detained and then placed the suspect in his patrol car for “officer safety.”  In another,  an officer testified that it was his routine to have individuals sit on the curb during a car stop.  Fortunately for the two cases, the officers had facts to support these actions.  Using terms during testimony like “officer safety” and “routine” to justify actions during a detention is in the best case, sloppy, in the worst case illegal-potentially leading to the suppression of otherwise admissible evidence.  Let’s review detentions and some of the circumstances that allow for the movement of suspects during detentions. 


It is settled that when an officer restrains an individual’s freedom of movement in any way that the officer has “seized” that person.  That is the holding in Terry v. Ohio.  A detention must be supported by reasonable suspicion.  Reasonable suspicion must be supported by articulable facts that leads a reasonable officer, in her training and experience, to believe criminal activity is afoot and the person detained is involved in that activity.  In other words, while “officer safety” is a paramount concern, it cannot, by itself, support a detention.  You must, as a reasonable officer, state the facts that lead you to detain the individual.  Some examples:


·       Night, in a high crime area.

·       During a car stop, more passengers in the vehicle than officers.

·       Back-up officer is a substantial distance away.

·       Suspect refuses to comply with commands to keep hands visible.

·       Baggy clothing that can contain a weapon.



While not an exhaustive list, these circumstances will support the decision to detain and then move a suspect during the detention.  Please save yourself time and headache by DOCUMENTING the facts that support your decision in your offense report. 


Once you have articulable facts to support the decision to detain you may restrict the detainees movements as well as those who may be with the detainee such as passengers in a vehicle. 


You may order those in a car out, or vise versa.  You may order a detainee to stay in certain place, or have them seated on the curb. Be careful about putting a detainee in your patrol car.  Some examples of when that may be an appropriate procedure is when you are waiting for a witness for a show up, a prolonged identification, onlookers are hostile, the detainee is becoming hostile, or if officers need to focus on other matters such as a victim or crime scene.  Again, these are not the only factual scenarios that allow for the detention of an individual in a patrol car, however, it is clear that “routine” and “officer safety” are not on the list. 

  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda