Appellate Law

CA1: Figidity person not under arrest when in handcuffs

By S. COTUS

US v. Brame, No. 07-1833 (unpublished) affirms a conviction, after uncritically reviewing a lot of cop-speak.  The First concludes that a valid Terry stop occurred, and therefore the person was not really in custody when he started acting ?figidity? and ?clamming up.?  The First explains that when questioning ?that type? of person, they can put them in handcuffs, and Miranda be damned.  Apparently, in Selya?s world, nobody is under arrest (or even ?custody?) when they are in handcuffs.

Sentencing the poor person to consecutive sentences is held not be plain error, or based on clearly erroneous facts.

Then it gets a little strange, the First says it won?t entertain an ?Amendment 706" motion (because the defendant, like most poor people, had crack.)  Instead, the First says, that needs to be made First at the District Court.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on July 11, 2008 (boomark / email).