CA2: Handcuffing one of three occupants of car until backup arrived in remote area was reasonable

Defendant was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery. His traffic stop resulted in a handcuffing on less than probable cause. “On de novo review, we conclude that this case presents ‘unusual circumstances’ under which an officer may handcuff a suspect without ‘transform[ing] a Terry stop into an arrest.’ Grice v. McVeigh, 873 F.3d 162, 168 (2d Cir. 2017).” It was apparent defendant was up to no good. The officer was in a remote area, and he didn’t know how long it would take backup to arrive. In addition, there were two others in defendant’s vehicle who were left there rather than take a chance on confronting them until backup came. United States v. Fiseku, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28102 (2d Cir. Oct. 4, 2018);

We generally view handcuff use as a “hallmark of a formal arrest.” Newton, 369 F.3d at 676. At the same time, we have long recognized that, “regardless of whether probable cause to arrest exists,” a “law enforcement agent, faced with the possibility of danger, has a right to take reasonable steps to protect himself.” United States v. Alexander, 907 F.2d 269, 272 (2d Cir. 1990). Recognizing the tension between these competing principles, we have explained that the Fourth Amendment occasionally will permit handcuff usage during a Terry stop when the “police have a reasonable basis to think that the person detained poses a present physical threat and that handcuffing is the least intrusive means to protect against that threat.” Bailey, 743 F.3d at 340 (emphasis added). To that end, we have previously found that officers acted reasonably in using handcuffs when they acted based on reliable information that a suspect was armed and possibly dangerous. See, e.g., Grice, 873 F.3d at 168 (The officer “received a report … of an individual matching [the suspect’s] description bending down by the [train] tracks with a remote control device,” and so “had reason to believe” that the suspect “might use an electronic device to set off an explosive on the tracks.”); Newton, 369 F.3d at 675 (Officers visited an apartment “to investigate a report that [the suspect] illegally possessed a firearm and had recently threatened to kill his mother and her husband.”); United States v. Vargas, 369 F.3d 98, 102 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[T]he officers had reliable information that [the suspect] was carrying a weapon,” and he “demonstrated his unwillingness to cooperate … by fleeing … when originally approached and continuing to struggle … following the stop.”).