[quote wave rider]Although their situation may change (in terms of arrest), should the three individuals who were
not arrested be allowed to sue for illegal detention?
Short answer is NO. Well, you can always sue, but it will immediately get thrown out of court. A police officer like any other citizen can stop and ask you questions. And just like any other situation, you don't have to answer anything. If the officer has "reasonable and articulable suspicion" to stop you for "investigative detention" or "probable cause" to arrest you then you have to comply physically or you will be breaking the law.
In the case of investigative detention:
Under the United States Constitution and Article First, ยงยง 7 and 9 of the Connecticut Constitution, a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest (State v. Lipscomb, 258 Conn. 68, 75, (2001); Terry v. Ohio, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).
The Terry court recognized one such exception when it held that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling his suspicions.
But a police officer is not entitled to detain or search every person whom he sees on the street or of whom he makes inquiries. Before he does so, he must have constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so. For example, in the case of the self-protective search for weapons, he must be able to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous (Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 64 (1968) http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0036.htm
Among other things, the Terry decision determined that a "stop and pat" was constitutional.
If you are unsure of your status, the best thing to do is ask if you are free to go. If the officer says no then you must stay, but you still don't have to open your mouth. Before arrest, if you feel compelled to respond to a question but don't want to divulge anything, then a good thing to say is "I can't answer that question." and leave it at that. There are many reasons that you might not be able to answer an officer's question, but there is no need to specify
your exact reason. By providing that answer, you have not lied nor admitted guilt.
Ever wonder why a police officer asks you if you know how fast you were going when you are stopped for speeding? Say no- and you are admitting that you weren't paying attention. Saying "Yes, I was going the speed limit" can be a lie. Best to just say that you always drive at a safe and legal speed and leave it at that.
And as most people know, once arrested and detained you may exercise your Miranda rights and choose not to answer any questions without legal counsel. And in most cases, this is the most intelligent thing to do. Look to the Duke rape case if you want to understand how important it is to protect yourself whether you have committed a crime or not.
Our resident law enforcement officer might be along shortly to correct or clarify.
I am not a lawyer so this shouldn't be construed as legal advice.
