question about consent

tonight, a friend, my brother, and i were all arrested. we were driving around (friend was driving, his car), and were pulled over for not having breaklights. the cops pulled my friend out of the car and talked to him for a while.....then they asked my brother and i to get out.
2 cops searched the car (my friend consented), and claimed to find pieces of marijuana shake on the floor (i dont know if they did or not, all he said was to vacuum out the car when we left, they didnt make a big deal out of it). then they asked to pat us down. they patted down my friend first, found nothing, then patted me down, and found nothing again. then they patted down my brother and found his cigs. (hes 17, in ohio its illegal to possess tobacco if you're under 18 ) . then they emptied out his pockets and found a bowl. after this, they told him to take off his shoes and found a bag of pot. he was placed under arrest.
then they came back to me and asked that i take off my shoes. i said that i did not consent to the search, and asked him what reason he had to search me. he said that it was "beyond consent.." because our stories didnt match, he found drugs in the car (not my car or drugs), and on another person. i said that i still didnt consent, but he told me i had to take off my shoes. i had a pipe in my shoe. i was arrested. then they found my friends bag in his shoe. we were all taken down to the station, my brother was released to my parents, iwas released on signature bond, and my friend posted bail. basically i want to know if they performed an illegal search on me since i refused to consent.
thanks in advance for all replies.
[ 26 September 2002: Message edited by: dexeder ]
[ 26 September 2002: Message edited by: dexeder ]

I think the search was illegal. There's a good chance the evidence would be excluded, depending on certain facts and the justification the police put forth.
A couple of points here:
First, the pat-down part was probably legit. They have the right to check you for weapons as a search incident to arrest, or on the basis of reasonable suspicion (Terry pat).
However, they did not have the right to go into your shoes at that point.
Now, it's possible they could still get the evidence in. They might argue that they were going to arrest you anyway (perhaps they had probable cause to think the marijuana found in the car was yours), in which case they would have discovered the pipe eventually, e.g. when you were processed at the police station. MAYBE. If they can make this argument credibly, then the evidence comes in under the "inevitable discovery" doctrine. But maybe they weren't going to arrest and process you.
The other problem is that even if the search was technically illegal, the judge may still rule that it was a legal search, just because most judges don't particularly like to throw out evidence if they don't absolutely have to.
I think you have a decent case though. Make damned sure your attorney knows you didn't consent, and don't let the cops twist it around.
Obviously, the big mistake was when your friend consented to the car search...
[ 26 September 2002: Message edited by: Mahan Atma ]

I really really doubt you'll be able to beat this search. There is a question of probable cause for making you take off your shoes, but it's such a close question and judges are so reluctant to grant suppression motions that I doubt you'd be successful.
You say the cop claimed that your "stories didn't match" do you have any idea what your brother and friend said? There might be something to dispute there, but given the totality of the circumstances, I really don't think you've got much of a chance.

Yeah, Gonzo's probably right. It'll depend on the judge. I think the search was illegal, but it's close enough so that most judges would let it in. You're in the Midwest it looks like... good luck.

NEVER!!!! Consent to a search...NEVER.

You got arrested for having a pipe?
Mongrols!