They did have probable cause: they had concrete information that the perpetrator was one of the 19.
Those citizens were not deprived of their civil rights: courts have long approved of such temporary detainment during investigation, with appropriate means to prevent flight. If it was unlawful, those detained can now sue, and I doubt they will be successful, given all the circumstances.
You assume too much. Perhaps only that car was searched because of something learned once they extricated its occupant; it doesn't mean the tracker identified that particular car--it may only have identified its more general locale, within a few feet. And responsible police would not assume he might not have an accomplice in an adjacent car.
The problem is cops who think they can do anything in the name of their own safety, including endangering citizens in the vicinity.
Those cops didn't "do anything." They went by the book for that situation. Unless you can cite specific guidelines otherwise, how do you know this approach isn't specifically designed precisely to ensure the safety of citizens in the vicinity?
The whole point of our constitution is that we Americans prefer preserving our freedoms over netting one more bad guy.
Well, that's certainly not the whole point, but let's start there. It's true that it guarantees a fair trial once charged, and it protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. But, as I wrote yesterday and have detailed in this post, this appears reasonable to me and to anyone, I suspect, who doesn't already have an ulterior motive in disparaging police.
While FR is increasingly replete with any number of stories about some police abusing their trust, if that's one's main input it is a slanted and distorted picture, indeed. I come at it from a specific viewpoint. I never excuse such abuse, knowing that all men are fallen and power corrupts. But, I honor first the concept of our need for civil administration and protection. That's based on my understanding of my need to obey Romans 13:
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."
I vehemently disagree with the handcuffing. That’s just excessive bullshit WITHOUT probable cause.
There is case law and USSC decisions to the contrary. LEO are not allowed to generalize probable cause from the specific to the general. It has to be articulated and specific.
It may suck, but they aren’t allowed to assume everyone “may” be an accomplice because they are adjacent to them or ensnared in a road block.
They most particularly aren’t allowed to detain them with cuffs. That is arrest w/o probable cause and it wasn’t done for any reason other than officer safety at the expense of public safety.
Not acceptable.
Romans 13 does not apply. LEO are NOT our rulers, nor are they in authority over civilians. You have the cart before the horse.