Was this an illegal search?

Wait, I know that you can be searched because you were tresspassing and loitering. But lets say you were on the street by your house when this occured. Your friend still consents to a search. YOU, as the passenger, can say no to being searched right? It's not like you are part of the vehicle...
 
It is important to understand that not all searches are the same. The police can pat down your outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion to believe you may be armed. If the officer feels something he believes may be a weapon, he may go into your pockets to eliminate the threat of a weapon. Once arrested, the police may conduct a full search of your person incident to the arrest without probable cause. If you are stopped while driving and subsequently arrested, the police may search your car to make an inventory of its contents, to protect the property of the arrestee. Although the purpose of this kind of a search is not to discover evidence, any evidence which is discovered may be used against the arrestee at trial under the Plain Sight Doctrine, which provides that any incriminating evidence observable from a law enforcement officer from a position he lawfully occupies may be seized and used against the arrestee.

However, I am myself a little fuzzy on the right of law enforcement with respect to a passenger in a vehicle owned or operated by a third party. I know this area has been ruled upon, but I am too busy to research the issue at the moment. If I get a spare moment, I'll post the answer.
 
CreativeRandom said:
Wait, I know that you can be searched because you were tresspassing and loitering. But lets say you were on the street by your house when this occured. Your friend still consents to a search. YOU, as the passenger, can say no to being searched right? It's not like you are part of the vehicle...
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that you effectively have NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY in your car if you are pulled over. The officer, at his own discretion for any reason or no reason at all, may arrest ALL passengers in a car if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" etc. If one person in a car is arrested, all may also be arrested. When you are arrested, they may also search you for any reason and use that as evidnece against you. Additionally, the police can search your car as well as bring in K9 units as welll.

You may not be a part of the vehicle, but in the view of any reasonable officer, you may be involved in whatever illegal or suspicion activity he observed. Therefore, he may take you in and question you as well.

I don't know how many times I have to re-iterate to the people on this board (no offense to you), but as a general rule you have virtually no privacy when you are pulled over in a car, and you are powerless if the police are agressive.
 
The officer, at his own discretion for any reason or no reason at all, may arrest ALL passengers in a car if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" etc.
Click to expand...

Not true. Probable cause is what a police officer must have in order to make an arrest.

Reasonable suspicion is what a police officer must have in order to momentarily detain a person to question them about a crime or to do a pat down of their clothing should he believe they are armed with a weapon. This measure of proof is more than a hunch or a guess. It requires "articulate facts", i.e., the officer must state the facts which gave rise to his suspicion in order to make it a reasonable one.
 
I think the OP may have a case that falls outside the plain feel doctrine.

In short, the plain feel doctrine allows a law enforcement officer to seize evidence “felt” during a lawful pat down for weapons if it is immediately apparent to the officer that the object felt is probably contraband.

The officer saying "I think I feel a knife" combined with what was actually in his pockets and the fact that they didn't find a knife or anything resembling one, leads me to believe this may be good to bring up in court.
 
BeenThere: I didn't mean to imply that reasonable suspicion was the specific term as articulated under the law that has a specific legal meaning. What I was trying to convey was the fact that police officers can manufacture virtually any bullshit that they want to get all the probable cause and reasonable suspicion that they need. When it comes down to it in court, the jury is going to believe the cop and not the suspect, and since it is virtually impossible to challenge what another cop may or may not have saw and whether or not that constitutes a justification for a search, you are effectively screwed.
 
Calm like the Bomb, please leave such "law bending" cops out of these theoretical events. A cop can shoot you and get away with it, saying, you pulled out what looked like a weapon and raised it at the officer. But, that usually doesnt happen.

What I am asking, is say the driver of the car is pulled over for something, consents to a search, the cop finds marijuana on him. You, as the passenger, declare ignorance. The law states that if you did not know, then you are innocent. This , unfortunately, may be something you will have to fight in court. Fortunately, you can probably win. "Lack of evidence" goes a LONG way in court, and despite the charge and incriminating naysay and witnesses, lack of evidence will rule out. You can have 5 witnesses against you, but if that's all, Lack of Evidence rules. But anywas....

What I'm saying is your friend is arrested. Can you be searched if you say no?

I know that the cop can FRISK you if he has reasonable suspicion of a weapon. I know he must have reasonable suspicion, to have probable cause. Reasonable suspicion may be something like your red eyes, and probably cause being you smelling like bud. But if you truly are innocent, do not smell of bud or have red eyes, can you be searched if you say no? You have not been arrested yet. It seems to me the answer is that you can't be searched.

Of course, the cop can say "i dont believe you shithead" and search you. But lets say you are honest about not knowing, and the cop sees your honesty.
 
Ok here is the answer. When a police officer pulls a car over and before making any arrests, he is entitled to require the driver and any passenger(s) to get out of the car. The purpose of this rule is to promote officer safety. Once the passenger is out of the car, a police officer may pat down his outer clothing for weapons.

Prior to an arrest, probable cause to search the driver of the vehicle is sufficient to support a search of the passenger as well. Thus, if the officer does not have probable cause against the driver, he cannot search the passenger.

After the driver is arrested, the officer may search anywhere in the vehicle, as well as any passengers.

The primary difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause is degree. Both refer to the impressions police officers formulate based on events and circumstances as to the likelihood of criminal activity. To say that probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion is to say that probable cause requires a greater likelihood of criminal conduct than reasonable suspicion. There is no bright-line test for either standard. Each is largely applied on a case-by-case basis and both require consideration of the totality of circumstances. Thus, instead of struggling to define either standard, try to understand each by how it relates to the other, insofar as the primary distinction between them is not substantive, but merely a matter of degree.

By the way, just to try to clear up a little confusion....... it is helpful to divorce the common lay meanings of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" from the phrases themselves, because they are labels more than they are descriptions. "Reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are standards against which police conduct is measured. Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, that is, it is easier to satisfy "reasonable suspicion" than it is to satisfy "probable cause".
 
Thanks

To have probably cause, there has to be reasonable suspicion first. Lighters flicks every few seconds, weaving in and out of the lane, screaming.
 
It is axiomatic that a lesser standard must first be met before meeting a higher standard, so CreativeRandom is correct insofar as where circumstances or events are sufficient to support a judicial finding of probable cause, those same circumstances or events will be sufficient to support a judicial finding of reasonable suspicion, as well.

However, a probable cause analysis usually does not involve consideration of reasonable suspicion. In other words, courts don't usually ask whether reasonable suspicion existed as a prerequisite to a finding of probable cause. Each standard is evaluated independently of the other.

Finally, CreativeRandom, your last sentence is way out in left field. I'm concerned about you.... ;-)
 
Well, I didn't mean that. Lighter flicks, I dont have to explain. Weaving, I'm sure we all have accidentally weaved a bit as we reached under the back passenger seat. Screaming, maybe your playing around and a cop comes to check it out because it may be a damsel in distress, or simply a disturbing the peace charge in motion.

I think reasonable suspicion was set so a cop could not go hassle random people. However if they right away see an acitivity that could warrant probable cause, its jumped.
 
Don't assume that a jury will always side with a cop in the states. This can lead to some unwanted body language. Point of fact: I have won twice against cops when they lied by simply showing that their claims were intrinsically self-contradicting.

Here is where this MIGHT apply in your case:

You mentioned that the officer never even removed the keys from your pocket. The officer claims to have suspected a knife. He removes drugs that cannot reasonably be mistaken for a knife, yet is no longer compelled to search for this knife? This illustrates in a quanifiable way the actual degree of suspicion of a weapon -- NONE. After all, as an officer, he has been specifically trained to neutralize any threat against him immediately, and step one of this is to DISARM the suspect. That is why the search comes early. Now, if he had enough suspicion of a weapon to begin the search, would the presence of drugs INCREASE the likelihood of carrying a weapon or DECREASE that likelihood? This officer is going to have to explain what RELIEVED HIS SUSPICION enough to STOP SEARCHING, and he has to do so in the exact same terms in which he expressed the elements that created that suspicion.

Here's the argument in bulletpoints:

1. The officer suspected drugs, not weapons.
2. The officer's search for weapons was a ruse.
3. The 'suspicious element' (bulge in pocket) initiated search, according to the officer.
4. The appearance of drugs stopped the search.
5. Officer's full "expectation of findings" was fulfilled, especially in light of the fact that by producing the so-called weapon that would now likely remain in your pocket the officer could easily have clenched the search, when instead he felt secure enough in the presence of a drug carrying individual to ignore the very thing that threatened him enough to initiate the search. This is a trained individual, and therefore that security is not casual. One must conclude that the officer not only did not suspect a weapon, but in fact knew there was not one, because to ignore even the slightest expectation at this point in the search would be to risk himself and his partner.
6. There was no change in the feel of the bulge of your keys.
7. Conclusion: Officer began the search with the presumtion that there were no weapons, but there were drugs.

(Incidentally, the fact that your keys actually had a knife on them may help to show how strong his bias toward finding drugs truly was -- he actually overlooked the very thing he claimed to suspect when it was there all along.)

Now, you must be sure to get the officer to first establish that he suspected a weapon. Make him say it by asking him why he searched you and what did he expect to find. Once you get him to commit to the position that he suspected the presence of a weapon, you need to try to get him to commit to having absolutely no presumption as to the presence of drugs. If you can get both establishing positions out of him, I say you have a good shot at getting it tossed.

BTW I am NOT a lawyer. I am only speculating here, and doing so by drawing from my own personal experiences with police officers in courtrooms regarding searches. I am not advocating a confrontational or disrespectful attitude. I am simply stating my opinion in the matter, and I would remind you to take the post into consideration in that context only.
 
Last edited:
all that is required is that the police officer show that his suspicion of a weapon was reasonable. Therefore, at trial, the officer need only show that something actually in the suspect's pockets could reasonably have been mistaken for a knife. Since the poster's keychain actually did contain a knife, that standard shouldn't be too diffult to meet.

However, if the officer never actually seized the knife, or failed to check the ENTIRE contents of the pocket which the officer suspected contained a knife, then this would suggest that his suspicion of the presence of a weapon was actually a pretext to search for drugs, which is what I think synchrojet is getting at.
 
Since the poster's keychain actually did contain a knife, that standard shouldn't be too diffult to meet.
Click to expand...

The OP never stated that they did actually have a knife on the key chain or otherwise.

If the officer thought that the keys were a knife, why didn't he pull them and see??? Or did he --- Staticage didn't really say???

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?"
Click to expand...

The officer would need to articulate reasonable suspicion for why he felt you may have had a weapon. The police can't just legally pat you down for weapons because you refused a search.
 
I must say that US laws it totally ridiclous....

I read it all but not he comments... still OMFG.. how can u stand out with all those harrasment?
 
If i lived in US i would move out..

HEY someone called me bitch now gimme 2 million dollars...

wtf are u about? Ailens....

*edit* SUE ME U Sick BASTARDS! Im sure u have a law that gives u the right to sue me now.. FUCK U *edit*
 
if you lived in the u.s., you would probably be American, and if you moved out, you'd be leaving the only place in the world where you weren't held in general disregard, if not despised. So I actually doubt you'd move if you lived here.
 
static_mind said:
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
Click to expand...

Same with Amerikkka. My friend was arrested a week ago today driving home from South Dakota when he was pulled over because of driving 5 over the speed limit. He hadn't smoked in over a week, but has cigarettes every few minutes so his car reeks of tobacco if anything. The police officer waited until the ticket was written for speeding then said "I smelled something 'funny' in your car."

My friend replied as friendly as he could, but also firmly said, "officer you may not search my car, i have not been committing those crimes." Well, the police really cared about that, and after searching his car for a long while found a pipe stashed without any pot.

Because of the RESIN!!! in the pipe, he was charged with possession, paraphenilia and driving WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE! of marijuana because he failed a urinalysis (smoked 1.5 weeks before) and he went to jail. Later we looked at the marijuana laws in South Dakota which make it so that if you fail a pee test they can bust you for possession.

This country has truely brought me to the brink, after that, a few bullshit arrests of friends that I have been around including some very illegal searches, the violation of my rights when I was arrested, and 3 friends who were arrested literally feet from their dorm rooms for being "drunk," I'm finding the need to leave this country as soon as possible. People say you shouldn't live somewhere simply because of drugs, ...but when you can be arrested without even participating in the crime, everyday life becomes a bit harder to live. :X
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top