Warrantless Searches

mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I'm not a lawyer but you hear that police do pat down searches for drugs all of the time often without consent. Watching the cop TV show Vegas Strip, I watched them take someone into custody, in hand-cuffs because the cop believed he saw a hand-to-hand drug transaction. The suspect asked if he was being arrested and was answered just detained by the cop. So not under arrest but they went ahead and searched his pockets because they could 'smell' marijuana. The suspect clearly told them he does not consent. Even the sergeant called to advise said that it is just good police work and following up on reasonable suspicion. BULLSHIT! First of all they need probable cause and a warrant. Now if they had probable cause by smell alone, probably a lie considering how small the baggie was, they should have arrested him. I think he's going into court and will walk if he gets an attorney present his case. This is a good example of why you should never consent to a search. The fucking cop had the nerve to insist later that it was such a small amount, if he had just consented he would have only received a citation and be on his way. Lying bastard.

Thoughts? Am I wrong?
 
F

Fight411

Active Member
That's crazy I watched that too. He was drinking but that's Completely legal there. He said a bunch off times he didn't consent asking them questions and they just bullshited him.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Fight411 said:
That's crazy I watched that too. He was drinking but that's Completely legal there. He said a bunch off times he didn't consent asking them questions and they just bullshited him.
Click to expand...
I would love to have been able to see what happened in front of the judge. This just goes to show, many cops police are not entirely clear on what constitutes a legal search. The problem is that nothing will happen to any of those cops and they will continue to perform illegal searches.
 
SFguy

SFguy

Well-Known Member
officer involved shooting last friday, police went to detain another police officer a shootout ensued adn now one is dead... crazy training day shit
 
W

weedbeavis

Member
mindphuk said:
I watched them take someone into custody, in hand-cuffs because the cop believed he saw a hand-to-hand drug transaction.
Click to expand...
In most jurisdictions the observation of the offense permits a warrantless search. Take Texas for example, here's the arrest without warrant statute. Notice it allows arrest by non police as well. It's a heavily litigated portion of that code. Whether or not the cop really saw anything or not is a whole different story.

CHAPTER 14. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT


Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
weedbeavis said:
In most jurisdictions the observation of the offense permits a warrantless search. Take Texas for example, here's the arrest without warrant statute. Notice it allows arrest by non police as well. It's a heavily litigated portion of that code. Whether or not the cop really saw anything or not is a whole different story.

CHAPTER 14. ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT


Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.
Click to expand...
That's why I mentioned that the officer in question told the suspect that he was NOT under arrest but only being detained. AFAIK, they must first place you under arrest before they can search you and that seems consistent with the law you quoted. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest you, then he is essentially admitting he doesn't have probable cause. The bottom line is they should not have been able to search him without a warrant if he was not under arrest at that time.
 
CSI Stickyicky

CSI Stickyicky

Well-Known Member
I see people on COPS and other shows like that giving up their 4th amendment rights all the time. Many times, the officer will say something sneaky like "This is the part where i have to pat you down to make sure you have no guns on you" and then person will not object immediately, and that is considered legal. This is bullshit, but it's the way it is.

It is your job as a citizen to make sure you are not taken advantage of in this way.

Memorize this phrase: "I do not consent to ANY searches"
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
CSI Stickyicky said:
I see people on COPS and other shows like that giving up their 4th amendment rights all the time. Many times, the officer will say something sneaky like "This is the part where i have to pat you down to make sure you have no guns on you" and then person will not object immediately, and that is considered legal. This is bullshit, but it's the way it is.

It is your job as a citizen to make sure you are not taken advantage of in this way.

Memorize this phrase: "I do not consent to ANY searches"
Click to expand...
Searching for weapons is legal. The pat down must be on the outside of the clothing. They cannot go in the pocket unless they feel something.

https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/warrantless
Stop and frisk searches. The police can stop you on the street and perform a limited "pat-down" search or "frisk" — this means they can feel around your outer clothing for concealed weapons.

The police don't need probable cause to stop and frisk you, but they do at least need to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on specific facts. This is a very low standard, though, and the courts usually give the police a lot of leeway. For example, if a police officer is suspicious that you're carrying a concealed weapon based on the shape of a lump under your jacket or the funny way that you're walking, that's usually enough.

If, while patting you down, a police officer feels something that he reasonably believes is a weapon or an illegal item, the officer can reach into your clothes and seize that item.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top