|
NPerez
Stranger
Registered: 11/09/04
Posts: 1
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
|
Was this police search legal?
#4360025 - 07/01/05 02:44 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yesterday me and a few friends went to another friends apartment complex and we were all drinking outside at a picnic area. . we're all underage except for one person that's 21. The cops showed up and said someone called them. . they patted everyone down, searched the guys pockets, made the girls turn their pockets inside out, checked the girl's bags throughly, and made us dump all the alcohol (they were nice and left us 4 beers though, "for the 21 year old")
What I'm wondering is if it was legal for them to search the girls bags. They were obviously looking for pot cause they asked if we had any on us, but is underage drinking a reason to suspect drug-use? . One of the girls wasn't drinking at all, so I don't see why they could search her fuckin bag.. maybe cause she was with underage drinkers. .
i hate cops. . all that beer. . gone. . it will be missed.
|
TubOlucinogens
Stranger

Registered: 06/10/05
Posts: 299
Last seen: 18 years, 29 days
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: NPerez]
#4360152 - 07/01/05 03:11 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You got off easy.
|
ZippoZ
Knomadic


Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 13,227
Loc: Pongyang, North Korea
|
|
only if they gave concent i think... although if oyu were in a public park its a question of if you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, which i do not think that you had.... considering you had beer out that is enough probable cause for a s earch of anything that might have more beer..
oddly enough in my town, af ter going over the procedures manual, when they do a weapons search of your body and pockets they can n ot put their hands in your pockets..... just p at them down...
-------------------- PEACE
zippoz "in times of widespread chaos and confusion, it has been the duty of more advanced human beings - artists, scientists, clowns, and philosophers - to create order. In such times as ours however, when there is too much order, too much m management, too much programming and control, it becomes the duty of superior men and women and women to fling their favorite monkey wrenches into the machinery. To relieve the repression of the human spirit, they must sow doubt and disruption" "People do it every day, they talk to themselves ... they see themselves as they'd like to be, they don't have the courage you have, to just run with it."
|
Deadmaker
Stranger


Registered: 02/09/05
Posts: 5,471
Last seen: 2 months, 4 days
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: NPerez]
#4360445 - 07/01/05 04:30 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I believe that once you have broken the law in some way, that they have the right to search you whether you let them or not.
|
drtyfrnk
PresidentialCandidate 2008



Registered: 01/24/05
Posts: 2,961
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: Deadmaker]
#4360901 - 07/01/05 06:48 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Deadmaker said: Yeah, I believe that once you have broken the law in some way, that they have the right to search you whether you let them or not.
It's true.
-------------------- It's Krang, Bitch!
|
Lana
Head Banana


Registered: 10/27/99
Posts: 3,109
Loc: www.MycoSupply.com
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: NPerez]
#4361033 - 07/01/05 07:44 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Nope, all completely "legal"
LEO has the ability to search you or anyone you're with if they "suspect" that their may be illegal activity which can/will harm the officer him/herself or anyone present.
If you get caught with a pound of weed, you'll probably be charged with "intent to distribute" which is basically a stupid law saying "we THINK you were going to sell weed, so we're charging you for it".... when really you were just going to give it to all of your friends
Plus, since some of you were underage, the cop could easily say that the minors were endangerment of "something dangerous".
Bullshit laws from you bullshit government
Have a nice day Lana
-------------------- Myco Supply - Distributors of Mycological Products http://www.MycoSupply.com The Premiere Source for Mushroom Growing Supplies. Visit us online or call us toll free
|
cubicidal
Stranger
Registered: 03/23/05
Posts: 217
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: Lana]
#4361340 - 07/01/05 09:41 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
" LEO has the ability to search you or anyone you're with if they "suspect" that their may be illegal activity which can/will harm the officer him/herself or anyone present."
Not true. They can only do a patdown. If they pat something that feels like an ounce of rocks in one pocket and a digi in the other, they CANNOT remove said items! They can only remove what they can (reasonably) believe to be a weapon.
The searches carried out in the original post were probably legally. The cops probably said something like "we're gonna search you now, alright?" in a commanding tone, and they probably said "fine," giving the cops consent for a search.
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: cubicidal]
#4361914 - 07/02/05 12:19 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Everyone's a lawyer, so here's my take.
Once minors were found drinking, the cops could have arrested the whole bunch, taken everyone down to the station, booked them, strip searched them, and locked them up until the minors were released to their parents and the adults were released at a judge's discretion.
You guys got off lucky.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
discoabe
Stranger

Registered: 03/26/04
Posts: 674
Loc: Nevada
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: Diploid]
#4362060 - 07/02/05 01:05 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Cubicidal is referring to a Terry Search, which is an officer making sure no one has any weapons on them for safety. NPerez, when you say the cops searched the guys pockets do you mean they reached into them? or did they pat them down and ask what was in there? If they did the latter that's fine because that's a Terry search, if they did the former they violated your rights, but they're cops and you're a bunch of underage kids drinking in public so they cops don't really care. It's tough answering these questions because there is a big difference between what cops can legally do, and what they will do. Oh, and I'm not lawyer, just a criminal justice major.
|
azurescens
member
Registered: 02/17/04
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: NPerez]
#4378537 - 07/07/05 01:37 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It amazes me how little people know of the law, yet they give opinions of what it may or may not be. No wonder people are getting busted al the time. Once you are guilty of a criminal offense..in this case, underage drinking, you MOST CERTAINLY can be searched, including your bag, pockets, car...etc. Google yourself the state and federal laws and you'll find out this fact for yourself instead of getting a bunck of "I think this" and I think that" answers.
|
discoabe
Stranger

Registered: 03/26/04
Posts: 674
Loc: Nevada
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: azurescens]
#4378644 - 07/07/05 02:26 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It depends what order they did things in azurescens. If they just came up on the kids, and searched them before seeing what they were drinking, you can't do that. If they saw them drinking beer, and then either IDed them to see if they were of age or it's illegal to have open containers where they were, then yeah they can search them, but still only for weapons. They would have to consent to a search, just like if it was a traffic stop, just because you were speeding, doesn't mean you have to consent to a search.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: azurescens]
#4378870 - 07/07/05 05:14 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> Once you are guilty of a criminal offense..in this case, underage drinking, you MOST CERTAINLY can be searched
Guilt is determined after an arrest, not before. Guilt is determined by a jury (or a judge), not the police. Guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of a search.
> It amazes me how little people know of the law
I think you just made your own point.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
scatmanrav
Brainy Smurf

Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 11,483
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 25 days
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: Seuss]
#4378919 - 07/07/05 05:42 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Everyone should read up on their rights. Since you could have been arrested right there for underage drinking, they could search you. Had they found anything you would have "been under arrest" "before" they searched you most likly in the reports. Probable cause could have been argued too. Once you can be arrested (not nessesarily guilty, but thats semantics IMO) your rights against search and seizure are squat.
Some probable cause info thats good to know....
The decision in Terry v. Ohio (1968) established that some brief seizures may be made without probable cause. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will soon be committed, that officer may briefly detain a suspect to frisk him for weapons and question him. This is known as a "Terry stop."
The Illinois v. Rodriguez case of 1990 established that a factual error made by an officer, if it was a reasonable mistake under the circumstances, does not invalidate probable cause nor invalidate any evidence obtained. SOURCES OF PROBABLE CAUSE
The basic thrust of the law in this area is that there are some sources of probable cause that need to be supplemented by other sources, and then, there are some sources that are good enough by themselves. There's no need to adhere to a totality of circumstances test, or checklist format (e.g., 4 out of 10 possible sources equals probable cause). The law makes ample use of precedents set in other areas of procedural and evidence law.
Most of the sources can be categorized into four (4) groups:
Observation -- These are things that the police officer obtains knowledge of via the senses: sight, smell, hearing; but this category would also include the kinds of inferences to be made when the experienced police officer is able to detect a familiar pattern (of criminal activity) that contains a series of suspicious behaviors (e.g., circling the block twice around an armored car unloading at a bank). Expertise -- These are the kinds of things that a police officer is specially trained at; such things as gang awareness and identification, recognition of burglar tools, the ability to read graffitti and tatoos, and various other techniques in the general direction of knowing when certain gestures, movements, or preparations tend to indicate impending criminal activity.
Circumstantial Evidence -- This is evidence that points the finger away from other suspects or an alibi, and by a process of elimination, the only probable conclusion to be drawn is that the person or things left behind is involved in crime.
Information -- This is a broad category which includes informants, statements by witnesses and victims, and announcements via police bulletins, broadcasts, and at roll call.
One can collapse these categories down to two (2) into direct and indirect:
I. Direct Sources of Probable Cause (Officer sources of knowledge)
FLIGHT -- Attempting to flee, evade or elude, is in evidence law a presumption of guilt. It's not by itself sufficient for probable cause, but it's surely going to result in a chase situation and custodial detention of some sort. The case of Wong Sun v. U.S. (1963) covered suspects who run out the side or back door as sufficient for probable cause, however, and there have been other cases in which suspicious behavior like dropping packages or using phones but not talking have held up.
FURTIVE MOVEMENTS -- "Furtive" means secretive or concealing, and the law requires a totality of circumstances here. The movement cannot possibly be construed as an innocent gesture (looking both ways before crossing the street). Nervousness alone is not sufficient as the law recognizes the right of people to be nervous or fearful around police. The movement cannot also be possibly the sign of a mental condition. There must be something secretive given the time, setting, weather, and audience. It would be best if the furtive movements were identifiable with a particular type of crime.
OBSERVATION OF REAL EVIDENCE -- "Real" evidence is demonstrative evidence (Exhibit A) that speaks for itself. Most of the time, these kinds of things are in plain view (binoculars and cameras are allowed as well as normal extensions of the senses, but you can't use a portable microscope to analyze the grass for fibers, e.g.). Fresh footprints is a good example, and the list includes: imprints, impressions, models, diagrams, sketches, photographs, video, and computer animation.
ADMITTED OWNERSHIP -- This involves, for example, a type of consent in which a person, say, accidentally empties the contents of their purse or pockets, and the police ask them if they own something, and they say "yes", and then the police look inside it and find contraband, they are said to have had probable cause for the search and seizure.
FALSE OR IMPROBABLE ANSWERS -- This is not normally a basis of probable cause alone, but it tends to trigger subsequent police inquiry or action. Examples might include a person being asked who the car belongs to, and they say "my cousin" but they don't know their cousin's name. Or, a girlfriend answers the door and says the apartment is rented under her boyfriend's name, but she doesn't know what kind of car her boyfriend drives.
PRESENCE AT A CRIME SCENE or IN A HIGH-CRIME AREA -- The two of these are actually somewhat different. Police have more powers at crime scenes to commandeer something, but in high-crime areas, this source of probable cause is definitely not sufficient by itself, and would probably be an example of nullification under the void-for-vagueness doctrine applicable to loitering. There are a couple of rules, however. The "joint possession" rule means that everyone in the house is subject to search and seizure if the drugs and/or contraband are in a prominent location. The totality of circumstances test applies in high-crime areas where (a) the neighborhood has to have a notorious reputation; (b) there's a typical sequence of events; (c) there's flight or attempted flight; and (d) furtive movements are present.
ASSOCIATION WITH KNOWN CRIMINALS -- This is not sufficient by itself for probable cause, except with some crimes, like conspiracies, counterfeiting, food stamp fraud, etc., where it's probable that others are involved or benefitting from the criminal activity. Association with a known drug dealer can also be incriminating in some cases. The most common case would involve somebody acting as security or a lookout for another, and this would be part of the experienced police officer standard.
PAST CRIMINAL CONDUCT -- An officer's personal knowledge of a suspect's past would be considered more likely to establish probable cause than just knowing they had a rap sheet. The officer would most likely have to know fairly intimate details of the person's life (perhaps by having previously arrested or interrogated them). In most cases, however, knowledge of this information is considered by the law to be relevant, but not sufficient.
FAILURE TO PROTEST -- This is, again, a presumption. Innocent people would react more strongly to various police actions that are incriminating. It definitely cannot be used alone as a basis of probable cause, but the interesting thing about it is that the police have it both ways. A person who is acting extremely submissive or extra "nice" might also be someone who has something to hide.
II. Indirect Sources of Probable Cause (Hearsay Evidence)
Hearsay is any second-hand information. The most common situation involves informants. The history of Informant Law has evolved from:
Aguilar test (1964) -- A two-prong test requiring the affidavit spell out the underlying circumstances of how the informant gained their knowledge AND a statement of the informant's veracity, or record of truthfulness.
Spinelli test (1969) -- A three-prong test requiring all the elements of Aguilar plus an assessment of how accurate the information from the informant might be from a police perspective. Is it against the informant's best interests, for example, to tell the police?
Gates test (1983) -- This replaces both Aguilar-Spinelli tests with a totality of circumstances test, requiring the police to think both like an offender as well as a reasonable man (subjective and objective test). The totality of circumstances test is discussed under the Stop & Frisk lecture, so it's a much looser standard associated more with reasonable suspicion than probable cause.
|
azurescens
member
Registered: 02/17/04
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: Seuss]
#4379609 - 07/07/05 12:02 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'guilt' as it pertains to the judiciary process but I meant exactly what scat is saying. If the cops see you engaging in criminal activity, even without being arrested they have all the authority to search you and any of your property. And if you have any interest in debating criminal law, Seuss, then by all means bring it this way and we shall see who knows more on the subject. 'Guilt' as it pertains in the court system is not the same as 'guilt' as used in local law enforcement proceedure AND as it is implied when taking your oath of service as a law enforcement officer so stick to what you think you know, which isn't criminal law. BUt as I said, bring forth any and all debates or questions you have and I promise that I'll set you stragiht on them.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: azurescens]
#4379854 - 07/07/05 01:10 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> And if you have any interest in debating criminal law, Seuss, then by all means bring it this way and we shall see who knows more on the subject.
I am most certainly not a lawyer and although I know more about law than what I watched on TV, I am not an expert by any stretch. I have been in court before, both as an expert witness and on the receiving end of the stick, and understand that what we see on TV is far from reality.
I also agree with you that everybody should know their basic rights.
However, I will call down anybody misusing words when talking about peoples lives with respect to law and being jailed. There is a huge difference between what police can legally do to a citizen walking down the road, a citizen that has been detained, a citizen that has been arrested, and a prisoner that has been found guilty and is in jail or prison. All four of these cases are different, each have very specific wording and descriptions, and each give the police different rights depending upon the jurisdiction in question. Your use of the word "guilt" was completely out of line with what was being discussed, even though the intention was correct (as far as I know). One cannot be too careful when dealing with this subject.
I have no interests in debating criminal law... I do want to understand it as best I can, so please; if you see mistakes, correct us. But please, when you correct us, correct us correctly. 
A good example of something I recently learned... I always had thought entrapment simply ment the police try to get you to participate in an illegal activity with them... I had no idea that the activity had to be something that the suspect would not typically be involved. A drug dealer is not being entrapped when a cop buys drugs from him for this reason, but at the same time if a cop posing as a drug dealer went up to somebody that normally wouldn't buy illegal drugs and tried to convince the person to buy some, then that would be entrapment... such fine lines can be the difference between freedom and life in prison.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
azurescens
member
Registered: 02/17/04
Posts: 717
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: Seuss]
#4380341 - 07/07/05 03:13 PM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I think that you confuse the words 'Guilt' and 'guilty'. Both of which are totally different in the court system as well as criminal law. You can make an admission of guilt without being guilty. There is also a preponderance of guilt that is totally different from the above stated. You can be guilty of engaging in criminal behaviour without actually being found guilty by a court. this is the difference between the two. If a cop observes underage drinking then by statute(at least in MA, NH and pretty much all the states I am aware of), the officer...." has legal right and obligation to assume said person of being guilty of stated offense...." That is straight from the MA general laws, under criminal law as it pertains to underage drinking. ANd the point I am making is that is it at this point where you lose your rights and can be searched because powers given to the police under the law let them assume that there is a preponderance to guilt. ANyway...I wont go into it all but lets just say that the search was 100% legal so long as it happened after the officers established the underage drinking.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: azurescens]
#4382869 - 07/08/05 04:21 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> You can make an admission of guilt without being guilty.
For true? I don't doubt your word, but could you give an example? I guess I can see the case that somebody lies and claims guilt even when they are innocent, but I suspect that is not what you meant.
> at this point where you lose your rights and can be searched
Would you have to technically be under arrest at this point, or would being detained be enough? It seems odd that an LEO can witness a crime, proceed to do a search, then allow the suspect to leave without charge. Not that I am compliaining *grin*, just trying to understand.
> lets just say that the search was 100% legal so long as it happened after the officers established the underage drinking
What about the girl that hadn't been drinking? I suspect that being in the presense of those that were was probably enough to get some kind of conspiracy charge, thus giving the LEO the right to search her as well?
I think I am starting to see where my confusion lies... once LEO makes an arrest, they are allowed to search. There is no question here. So in this case, when the LEO witnessed the probable crime of underage drinking, and established that the suspects were indeed underage, he had the authority to arrest at that point. Technically, I suspect he should have made the arrest before doing the search, but this is a guess on my part.... if so, then I think I understand... if not, then point me in the correct direction, please.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
scatmanrav
Brainy Smurf

Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 11,483
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 25 days
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: Seuss]
#4386723 - 07/09/05 11:57 AM (18 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Technicalities only hold up if the truth is told, when the arrest was actually made, before or after the search, depends on what the cop writes in his report.
Also I believe when you get a continuance, you are giving an admission to guilt, and to there being enough evidence to convict you, but the court doesnt want to waste th time or money on your first offence. My biggest case, was judged to be a continuance, but I was not found guilty..basically the judge said we have enough stuff to call you guilty, we just dont want to waste the time. I agreed, giving an admission of guilt, without being found guilty. I was also guilty of the crime (class d with intent) without being found guilty..
|
votelp2008
Stranger
Registered: 07/23/05
Posts: 28
Loc: 4th Federal Judicial Circ...
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: NPerez]
#4474241 - 07/30/05 04:52 PM (18 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Technically, I suspect he should have made the arrest before doing the search, but this is a guess on my part.... if so, then I think I understand... if not, then point me in the correct direction, please.
Although a Chimel search (a search incident to arrest) usually follows an actual arrest, the search is still 100% legal if done before an arrest. The order of the arrest and search does not matter. Even if no physical arrest actually occured, as long as the police had probable cause to make an arrest BEFORE the search, they can do a Chimel search (search incident to arrest), which allows the police to search the person as well as belongings in the suspect's immediate area. Since people were caught underage drinking in plain view, the cops had the necessary probable cause to make an arrest for underage drinking.
For more information, consult the following two Supreme court cases: Chimel v. California establishes the legality of a search incident to arrest, and Rawlings v. Kentucky establishes that the search may take place before an arrest, as long as police had the necessary probable cause to arrest before the search took place.
As a sidenote, the only legal way the officers could have searched is a search incident to arrest. A Terry stop does not allow searches of bags, and a non-Chimel search of someone's person or belongings requires a warrant.
--------------------
"...the primary reason to outlaw marihuana is its effect on the degenerate races." -Harry Anslinger
Edited by votelp2008 (07/30/05 05:06 PM)
|
MikeOLogical
Doctor ofShroomology


Registered: 01/30/04
Posts: 4,133
Loc: florida
Last seen: 4 years, 9 months
|
Re: Was this police search legal? [Re: Seuss]
#4474385 - 07/30/05 05:48 PM (18 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
a cop who doesn't plan to make an arrest doesn't have to worry about the niceties of the law... there's no consequence whatsoever to an officer who searches someone and then lets him go after dumping out his beer/weed/cocoa puffs/whatever...
the only place your right against illegal search has any consequence at all is in a court when you are accused of a crime...
-------------------- We got Nothing! we're no longer selling jars.
|
|