S.Ct. 1568, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985)); see Copening, 506 F.3d at 1248. “An arrest is distinguished” from an investigative Terry stop “by the involuntary, ‘highly intrusive’ nature of the encounter.” Cortez, 478 F.3d at 1115. For example, “the use of firearms, handcuffs, and other forceful techniques generally exceed the scope of an investigative detention and enter the realm of an arrest.” Id. at 1115-16 (quotation, alterations omitted). Or an investigative deten tion may last too long under the specific circumstances of a given case and on that basis may be transformed into a de facto arrest. See Sharpe, 470 U.S. at 682-88, 105 S.Ct. 1568 (eschewing a bright-line rule); see United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145, 1150 (10th Cir.2004) (citing cases); see also Cortez, 478 F.3d at 1116 (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, Defendants do not
holding that the fourth amendment protects property as well as privacy holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 holding force used during seizure as well as its duration turned investigative detention into a full custodial arrest holding that it is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy spacious as well as clean wellbalanced as well as carefully patrolled holding that plaintiff bears burden of production as well as persuasion