Post by Shuftin on Aug 26, 2006 22:59:37 GMT -5
This is direct from the source @officer.com
A voice of authority. Tim Dees, Administrator for officer.com
I don't see this as a "Classified - LE Only" issue. I regularly covered it in the CJ classes I taught, which anyone could sign up for and attend.
A pat-search or frisk during a Terry stop (investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion - not an arrest) is limited to weapons (or things that can be used as weapons) that could be used against the officer. A law enforcement officer is only allowed to do the frisk if he or she can articulate why they believe the person being detained may have a weapon.
In the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson 508 U.S. 366 (1993) police stopped Dickerson outside the house of a known drug dealer. The detention was ruled as lawful, as the police reasonably believed that Dickerson was carrying illegal drugs. The officer then conducted a pat-search of Dickerson's clothing to locate weapons, and "felt a lump, a small lump, in the front pocket. I examined it with my fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane." The officer retrieved the object and found that it was a small plastic bag containing crack cocaine.
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the officer had overstepped the bounds of of the search authorized under Terry, because the officer clearly did not believe that the pocket contained a weapon.
The upshot here:
An officer needs reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior to detain a person for investigation.
If the officer can further articulate why the person being detailed may be carrying a weapon, he or she can conduct a pat-search or frisk for weapons.
If the pat-search locates anything that is clearly not a weapon, it is off limits unless and until the situation changes to permit a more intrusive search (consent, incident to arrest, warrant, etc.).
In regards to what SWATCop posted, that "Do me a favor and empty out your pockets..." request might result in a suppression of evidence if the court believed that the request was coercive. If the person being asked is not free to leave at that moment, a court could easily find that the situation was coercive and suppress any evidence that was recovered.
A voice of authority. Tim Dees, Administrator for officer.com
You pursue your investigation to develop the probable cause for an arrest. For instance, where I worked, we had a convicted persons registration law. If someone was required to register as a convicted person and had not done so, or had failed to register a change of address within 48 hours, they belonged to us. Then you do a search incident to arrest, and presto - dope. Or, you run the guy for warrants and find he has one for a ticket he didn't pay. He's arrested, and you get the dope. Or maybe he's under 21, and the pat-search locates a bottle of vodka (which can be used as a weapon). He's a minor in possession of alcohol, and you get the dope in the search incident to arrest. Or, since crackheads aren't generally known for their intellectual capacity, you give him a Miranda warning, he agrees to answer questions, and the first one is "Did you just buy some dope?" It's incredible how many of them will respond, "Yeah, it's right here," and pull it out of their pocket. Plain view doctrine - it's mine.
This situation is where you use skills that you aren't going to learn in a classroom or a police academy. You have to think on your feet, be able to talk to people and reduce their apprehensiveness and hostility, sell yourself, and use all of that in concert with a knowledge of what you can and cannot do under the law. It requires maturity and experience. These skills will get you a lot farther than being able to fight like Chuck Norris, drive like Dale Earnhardt, or shoot like Annie Oakley. They don't make for very interesting television, though, so they're not as well known.
When patting down the outside of a subject for weapons, unless you can obviously tell that it is a gun in their pocket, are you allowed to retrieve whatever that object is if you can't tell, and then use that object against them in court if its illegal? Also the subject is not under arrest at this point in this example. Basically, at every search ever made of a person, their entire pockets could be physically emptied if the officer cant tell whether its a weapon or not? true or false?
Are you asking about searches or a simple pat-down?
It seems you are referring to a pat-down which is different then a search of an individual.
I don't think this information should be discussed to a non LEO in a public forum.
Google and I am sure you can find your answers.
It seems you are referring to a pat-down which is different then a search of an individual.
I don't think this information should be discussed to a non LEO in a public forum.
Google and I am sure you can find your answers.
I usually say something like "Do me a favor and empty out your pockets on the trunk of my car." If the moron is dumb enough to empty out his pockets just because I asked him to, then that's HIS problem. Anything that I see on my trunk that's illegal is fair game. He emptied out his pockets on his own free will. 
Again, you are not a LEO, so you should be be receiving info on this. If you truely want the correct answer, google it as I state or ask a cop you know. This is a public forum and.
I will say this again. A pat-down is different then a search.
Why so anxious on knowing what is legal, etc?
I will say this again. A pat-down is different then a search.
Why so anxious on knowing what is legal, etc?
A voice of authority. Tim Dees, Administrator for officer.com
I don't see this as a "Classified - LE Only" issue. I regularly covered it in the CJ classes I taught, which anyone could sign up for and attend.
A pat-search or frisk during a Terry stop (investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion - not an arrest) is limited to weapons (or things that can be used as weapons) that could be used against the officer. A law enforcement officer is only allowed to do the frisk if he or she can articulate why they believe the person being detained may have a weapon.
In the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson 508 U.S. 366 (1993) police stopped Dickerson outside the house of a known drug dealer. The detention was ruled as lawful, as the police reasonably believed that Dickerson was carrying illegal drugs. The officer then conducted a pat-search of Dickerson's clothing to locate weapons, and "felt a lump, a small lump, in the front pocket. I examined it with my fingers and it slid and it felt to be a lump of crack cocaine in cellophane." The officer retrieved the object and found that it was a small plastic bag containing crack cocaine.
The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the officer had overstepped the bounds of of the search authorized under Terry, because the officer clearly did not believe that the pocket contained a weapon.
The upshot here:
An officer needs reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior to detain a person for investigation.
If the officer can further articulate why the person being detailed may be carrying a weapon, he or she can conduct a pat-search or frisk for weapons.
If the pat-search locates anything that is clearly not a weapon, it is off limits unless and until the situation changes to permit a more intrusive search (consent, incident to arrest, warrant, etc.).
In regards to what SWATCop posted, that "Do me a favor and empty out your pockets..." request might result in a suppression of evidence if the court believed that the request was coercive. If the person being asked is not free to leave at that moment, a court could easily find that the situation was coercive and suppress any evidence that was recovered.
So in a case like that, how is an officer able to get the drugs off the guy?
A voice of authority. Tim Dees, Administrator for officer.com
You pursue your investigation to develop the probable cause for an arrest. For instance, where I worked, we had a convicted persons registration law. If someone was required to register as a convicted person and had not done so, or had failed to register a change of address within 48 hours, they belonged to us. Then you do a search incident to arrest, and presto - dope. Or, you run the guy for warrants and find he has one for a ticket he didn't pay. He's arrested, and you get the dope. Or maybe he's under 21, and the pat-search locates a bottle of vodka (which can be used as a weapon). He's a minor in possession of alcohol, and you get the dope in the search incident to arrest. Or, since crackheads aren't generally known for their intellectual capacity, you give him a Miranda warning, he agrees to answer questions, and the first one is "Did you just buy some dope?" It's incredible how many of them will respond, "Yeah, it's right here," and pull it out of their pocket. Plain view doctrine - it's mine.
This situation is where you use skills that you aren't going to learn in a classroom or a police academy. You have to think on your feet, be able to talk to people and reduce their apprehensiveness and hostility, sell yourself, and use all of that in concert with a knowledge of what you can and cannot do under the law. It requires maturity and experience. These skills will get you a lot farther than being able to fight like Chuck Norris, drive like Dale Earnhardt, or shoot like Annie Oakley. They don't make for very interesting television, though, so they're not as well known.
