Please provide case law supporting your assertion that some how handcuffing a person makes them "under arrest" and not merely "detained." You imply that the police need to have probable cause
to place a person in handcuffs.
I submit the following:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Landmark case specifically establishing "reasonable, articulable suspicion" as the standard for investigatory stops.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
In this case, the USSC specifically declined to set an outside maximum period of detention during a "Terry" stop, stating: "Although we decline to adopt any outside time limitation for a permissible Terry stop, we have never approved a seizure of the person for the prolonged 90-minute period involved here and cannot do so on the facts presented by this case,” and, “In assessing the effect of the length of the detention, we take into account whether the police diligently pursue their investigation"
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005)
Continued detention to bring a drug-sniffing dog to the scene of a traffic stop is reasonable as long as it does not unreasonably prolong the stop.
United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675 (1985)
In assessing whether a detention is too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, it is appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant. Here, the DEA agent diligently pursued his investigation, and clearly no delay unnecessary to the investigation was involved.
Gallegos v. City of Colorado Springs
"A Terry stop does not automatically elevate into an arrest where police officers use handcuffs on a suspect or place him on the ground. Police officers are authorized to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of a Terry stop."
People of California v. Osborne
United States v. Stewart
All cases where handcuffing during an investigative detention was reasonable.
In re Carlos M. 220 CA3 372,385 (1990)
“The fact that a defendant is handcuffed while being detained does not, by itself, transform a detention into an arrest.”
United States v. Acosta-Colon
"Officers engaged in an otherwise lawful stop must be permitted to take measures—including the use of handcuffs—they believe reasonably necessary to protect themselves from harm, or to safeguard the security of others."
Haynie v. County of Los Angeles
"A brief, although complete, restriction of liberty, such as handcuffing, during a Terry stop is not a de facto arrest, if not excessive under the circumstances.”
US v. Neff, 300 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2002)
The allowable scope of an investigative detention cannot be determined by reference to a bright-line rule; "common sense and ordinary human experience must govern over rigid criteria."
United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221 (1985)
When police have a reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry stop may be made to investigate that suspicion
Since police officers should not be required to take unnecessary risks in performing their duties, they are authorized to take such steps as [are] reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of [a Terry] stop.
United States v. Maguire
The use of handcuffs to address legitimate officer safety concerns during a Terry stop or investigative detention does not transform that detention into an arrest
Bruzy and Riordan v. Trooper Joyner, et. al.
Troopers received a report of a possible gunshot fired from a vehicle. The vehicle was the subject of a high risk stop and the occupant (Bruzy) was handcuffed. Her fiance, Riordan, was traveling in a separate vehicle and stopped ahead of the scene. He was also detained and handcuffed, despite not being party to the original complaint. They filed a lawsuit and the court ruled that the detention and handcuffing were lawful measures taken in response to reasonable, articulable suspicion, and no "full blown arrest" occurred.
Sorry, I got tired of looking up and writing proper citations after a while. I eagerly await the case law and/or statutes that you have to present in support of your position.