Was this an illegal search?

Staticage

Staticage

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
616
Location
KY, USA
Last night a friend and I were parked on school property so he could just sit and smoke a cigarette before he took me to my house. We had stopped here countless times before so we didn't think twice about it. About 5 or 10 minutes later, a police car pulls up. They come up to us and get our licenses and all that stuff. They ask my friend to step out and explain to him that our town has an a policy where we are not allowed to be on closed properties at night... I don't remember exactly how it goes. Anyway, he asks my friend if he can search the vehicle, which he rightfully could have said no to. But, he said yes. So, he goes over to me and asks me to get out because he is going to search. When I get out I get this feeling that he wants to search me and is going to weither I say he can or not, so I say to him "you can't search me unless I tell you you can, right?" I have to say 2 or 3 times before he simply says, "Yes." But then he says, "But, I can search you for illegal weapons. You don't have any weapons on you, do ya?" I didn't know what to do, and I still do not know if this is legal. While he was searching me he said probably 6 or 7 times, "I think I feel a knife," when the only things in my pockets were a pack of papers that were maybe half a centimeter thick, chapstick, my keys, and a roach in whatever those things are that go over your cigarette packs. He keeps saying he feels a knife and pulls out my papers. He proceeds to search me, while his partner laughs, and continues to say he feels a knife and immediately pulls out the roach.

What I need to know is was his search action legal or illegal?

Edit: This was in the state of Kentucky if that helps...
 
Calm like the bomb hit most of it, except for three points-

1) Sitting in a parking lot after-hours is like a billboard advertising illegal activity to cops and neighbors.

2) Never bring up the topic of a search, and never even acknowledge the cop if he asks for a search unless he asks repeatedly -- answer with other statements or questions un-related to you being searched for drugs. Don't let the cop know you're thinking about the drugs you're about to be busted with when he's talking to you. Asking three times if he can search you shows that you've done some research on search and siezure law, and shows that you have something to hide. It's a dead give-away.

3) You have no real legal protections against a search. Rely on not attracting attention instead -- something you failed at on several levels this time.

Live and learn, and good luck with the court system :(
 
ahh I see. well thanks for the responses, guys. i will definitly need luck to get through the court.. ugh...
 
Re: Re: Was this an illegal search?

WNB said:
3) You have no real legal protections against a search. Rely on not attracting attention instead -- something you failed at on several levels this time.
Click to expand...

uhh, you most certainly have legal protection against a search. the problem was, your friend consented to the search and so he gave up his legal protection.

if a cop askes to search, always say no. it's your right. be polite, but firm. even if you're trespassing or something, they still have no reason to search. they just ask in hopes of foolish people saying yes while carrying contraband.. you'd be amazed at how many people say yes because they think they can't say no.
 
Re: Re: Re: Was this an illegal search?

frizzantik said:
[even if you're trespassing or something, they still have no reason to search. they just ask in hopes of foolish people saying yes while carrying contraband.. you'd be amazed at how many people say yes because they think they can't say no. [/B]
Click to expand...

Bollocks. By clearly breaking the law and being taken into police custody, your Constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, as well as your implicit right to privacy, go out the window. Being taken into police custody (even if you are not arrested) also means that your protections have gone out the window too. By your logic, I can be arrested for crack dealing on the street, but they are not allowed to search me after I'm taken into custody, even if I have a MAC-10, Tec-9, and 1,000 crack rocks hidden in my trenchcoat? Puh-leeze!

2. You are right about consensual searches though. They wouldn't ask you unless you had the right to say no, now would they?
 
Re: Re: Re: Was this an illegal search?

frizzantik said:
uhh, you most certainly have legal protection against a search. the problem was, your friend consented to the search and so he gave up his legal protection.

if a cop askes to search, always say no. it's your right. be polite, but firm. even if you're trespassing or something, they still have no reason to search. they just ask in hopes of foolish people saying yes while carrying contraband.. you'd be amazed at how many people say yes because they think they can't say no.
Click to expand...

if my friend said no search, the cop couldn't have searched ME?
 
If you are trespassing, you can be arrested. If you are arrested, you can be searched incident to that arrest. If the police ask you if they can search, say no. If they search anyway, don't say anything to the police, and retain the services of a competent attorney.
 
Calm like the Bomb is not entirely correct. The police do not have the right to search anyone on the street for weapons. The police can pat-down someone for weapons only if they can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in criminal acticvity. In court, the officer would have to describe a set of facts or circumstances that would lead an officer of similar experience to reasonably conclude that criminal activity may be afoot.

In Terry v. Ohio (1968 ), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a police officer may "pat-down" or "frisk" a suspect for weapons without violating the suspect's 4th Amendment rights as long as the officer has a reasonable articulable belief that the suspect may pose a threat to the officer's safety by being armed. Essentially, the purpose of this exception to the probable cause requirement for searches is to protect the safety of law enforcement officers. The extent of the search permitted, however, is limited to only what is necessary to determine the existence of weapons. Therefore, Terry permits an officer to pat down the clothing of a suspect. The officer may not go into any pockets unless he feels something in the pat-down that causes him to actually and reasonably believe the pocket contains a weapon.

In U.S. v. Robinson (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment is not violated by a full search of a person incident to a lawful arrest, and need not be limited to a frisk of the suspect's outer clothing for weapons. This means that once a suspect is arrested, the police are entitled to perform a full search of the suspect's person without violating the 4th Amendment.

In summary, the police must have reasonable suspicion to frisk a person for weapons, and are generally limited to outer clothing. Once an arrest is made, however, a full search is permitted.
 
Last edited:
Another Supreme Court case that comes into play here is Maryland v. Wilson.

In Maryland v. Wilson the supreme court ruled that Law enforcement officers who lawfully stop a vehicle may order the driver and any passengers out of the vehicle for the duration of the stop. The officer does not have to believe that his life is in danger or observe suspicious activity before giving such an order. A driver or passenger who refuses to obey the order may be charged with resisting officers, G.S. 14-223.

The right to order a driver or passenger out of the vehicle does not automatically give the right to frisk for weapons. Officers may only conduct a frisk if they have an objective basis for believing that the driver or passenger is armed (i.e. officers observe a bulge, or the stopped person threatens the officer). Officers may automatically frisk if they reasonably believe that one or more of the occupants has recently engaged in a serious offense involving violence, such as robbery, kidnapping, drug dealing, etc.

If your case went to court the officer would have to show he had an objective basis for believing that you were armed. He would then have to explain what felt like it was a knife thus justifying a full search of your person. If it can be shown what you actually had in your pockets then your case is that much stronger.

I have yet to see a completely honest cop when it comes to making up or egxagerating the facts in a drug case. You can bet that he will be able to present a reason for frisking you and how he felt a knife.

Your question was "was this search legal". The answer (given only what you have said) is NO!

Your ability to prove it is another discussion.

But, if you don't fight it then another cop gets away with violating civil liberties in furtherance of the great drug war.
 
forgotten said:
If you are trespassing, you can be arrested. If you are arrested, you can be searched incident to that arrest. If the police ask you if they can search, say no. If they search anyway, don't say anything to the police, and retain the services of a competent attorney.
Click to expand...

Trespassing most definitly warrents a weapons search, and as we all know these 'weapon searches' are just bullshit so they can take everything out of your pockets. I keep my drugs in the chestpocket of my jacket in the backseat, that way if they get me out for a search I will allowed it in good spirit. (gives a nice impression to the cop) I have never had them search the car after a goodwilled search of my person, but I would most definitly not consent since there is no reason for them to suspect anything. I would make up some bullshit about my curfew being at x time or whatever, and say I had to go. Just don't keep your stash on your person, it's dumb. Get a stash spot. I would already have one but I haven't been driving the car or hanging out in it enough to find one yet. I'm sure there are great spots everywhere though. I can't stress this enough, carrying drugs on your person is just foolish if you are driving around.
 
Im an aussie so we have different laws. I just though i might point out that cops often ask to search here and try and intimidate you into saying yes. But if you say no they just say "i can smell weed" which gives them the right to search.

pretty much there free to do what they want
 
Calm like the Bomb makes a good point. Although a search may ultimatey prove to be unconstitutional in court, thus suppressing any evidence stemming from the search, avoiding the search in the first place saves you the trouble of court appearances, attorney's fees, stress, and possible harm to your relationships with your friends or family.


It should be noted, however, that police officers are not without incentive to avoid unreasonable searches.

First, given the nature of the profession as public service and enforcing justice, there will always be a statistical likelihood that some police officers will be driven by a pure sense of morality. That is to say that some officers will not abuse their power simply because it woud be wrong to do so.

Second, many officers will be motivated to avoid abuse of their power because they take pride in their work. Many professionals strive to excel simply to achieve a sense of satisfaction in their career, and the police are no exception.

Third, many if not most police officers will be motivated to avoid abuse of their power by the harm an abuse of power would have on their professional reputations. For example, an officer who made a practice of abusing his power woud probably see his arrest to conviction ratio increase, which might in turn garner him a reputation for being careless. Such a reputation could hurt his career.
 
ok so obviously, the officer that patted me down was bullshitting when he said he felt a knife, and really had no reason to go inside my pockets. is there any sort of "action" i can take against the officer without using an attorney? when i'm in court, would describing what the officer actually did be of any help at all? i guess they would side with the officer.... ugh.
 
since you had your keys in your pocket, and swiss army knives are popular keychains, I doubt that the Court would find that it was unreasonable for the officer to believe he felt something that could be a knife. His search would probably be upheld by the Court.

There is no action you can take to make your situation any better, besides defending yourself in Court. If you want to do this without an attorney, it is permitted, but you will surely be convicted.

Find out what the most severe penalty is for the crime with which you have been charged. Compare that to the cost of hiring an attorney. If the latter is greater than the former, just plead no contest. This means that you are not admitting guilt, but that you are not contesting the charges and understand that you will be found guilty by pleading no contest.

How old are you, by the way?
 
well as far as the whole key thing.... after he patted me in the area where my keys were, he did not pull the keys out , only the papers. and then he kept patting me, not taking out my keys or even patting me in that area, he started patting me in my lower pocket where there was nothing that would be considered a weapon cause the only thing in that pocket was the roach.
 
http://www.kycourts.net/AOC/PretrialServices/P-16.pdf

Call the clerk of your county's circuit court and inquire about this program. Although your county is not listed in the information contained in the above link, I believe it is available throughout the entire state, with the services being provided in any one of three locations (each in a different county).
 
Staticage said:
ok so obviously, the officer that patted me down was bullshitting when he said he felt a knife, and really had no reason to go inside my pockets. is there any sort of "action" i can take against the officer without using an attorney? when i'm in court, would describing what the officer actually did be of any help at all? i guess they would side with the officer.... ugh.
Click to expand...

indeed they would side with the officer. you had objects in your pockets that "could" be weapons. even a very small knife is a weapon. your keys could "feel" like a knife. if say you had nothing in your pocket except a klinex, and he furthered his search to actually penetrating your pockets, then you might have a case. but you had objects that a cop can say in court felt like a weapon and i doubt there's anything you could say that would affect that.

sorry man, i know this sucks.

don't park on school grounds after hours i guess.
good luck and good lesson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top