Lawyer RP

[Summer]

Just curious what y'alls thoughts on this.

For example, John Jacobs has been placed in jail and pleaded the 5th to the PD. However, the cops had reasonable suspicion to do a search and found meth in his pants pocket.

John calls you to help him. How would you represent him if you did accept?

 

[Chicken Noodle Soup]

Reasonable suspicion isn’t enough to perform a full search, merely detain Mr. Jacobs and do a pat down for weapons therefore the meth found on him was found in an unlawful search. Mr. Jacobs’ constitution rights were violated.

 

[Ciggy]

Depending on how much was found on the subject, it can be ruled as a Terry v Ohio pat down. Within Terry v Ohio, if John was detained for reasonable suspicsion, it allows the officer to perform a "terry pat down," which allows the officer to perform a pat down on the exterior of his clothings in search for weapons or remove items other than weapons that the officer reasonably believes to be illegal contraband or other form of item that can harm the officer or another. If this is the case and John had a substaintial amount of meth on him for the officer to believe that it is illegal contraband, then it is a justified arrest. If it was a small amount of meth that can't easily be identified, then it is considered a violation of constituational rights. When it comes to having drugs on persons, officers are trained to identify certain objects and different types of contraband when performing pat-downs and searches.

 

[RedDragonKnight]

Minnesota v. Dickerson

 

[Ciggy]

^

 

[DeerFat]

>

 

[Summer]

Good answers, keep em coming. :3

 

[dryden]

Pretty sure Ciggy covered how it should be handled. THAT BEING SIAD... trial by combat is the most fair of trials

 

[Riffys]

Lord have mercy, the shipwrights are polishing their kangaroo court!

 

[Archer]

He better call saul

 

[Skratchdat]

Coming from a law enforcement background, any time someone is arrested, they will be searched when booked into jail. Its part of the process. I would look to see what the original charge was and try to determine if the individual was arrested within the confines of the law. If not, then the search would be considered unlawful and any evidence found would be inadmissible in court. (I was a Detention Officer as well as worked as dispatch/detention for just over 3 years, EVERY person we EVER booked into jail was searched thoroughly). In the Minnesota vs. Dickerson case, Dickerson was unlawfully stopped and searched, there was no probable cause for them to search his person. However, had Dickerson been visually identified as an individual with a warrant, or was witnessed committing a crime by the officers, the search would have been lawful.

 

[Jolly]

Coming from a law enforcement background, any time someone is arrested, they will be searched when booked into jail. Its part of the process. I would look to see what the original charge was and try to determine if the individual was arrested within the confines of the law. If not, then the search would be considered unlawful and any evidence found would be inadmissible in court. (I was a Detention Officer as well as worked as dispatch/detention for just over 3 years, EVERY person we EVER booked into jail was searched thoroughly)

It all depends on how they found it. If they did an improper search while he was only detained and tried to charge him later, whatever they found would be inadmissible. Obviously anybody being booked would be subject to a full search.

 

[Skratchdat]

It all depends on how they found it. If they did an improper search while he was only detained and tried to charge him later, whatever they found would be inadmissible. Obviously anybody being booked would be subject to a full search.

Correct, Once the subject is placed under arrest however, not merely detained, you are able to be searched and anything found be used against you. I also dont see how pleading the 5th would help in this situation, as he has already been incriminated by whatever he did to be arrested, so there is no self incrimination. As long as he is given his right to council i dont think there would be any infraction in this case. Id tell mr jacobs to cop a plea depending on the original charges and evidence.

also ill add, the original post said he had been placed in jail, which leads me to believe he HAS been arrested. Not merely detained, which would change things substantially.

tldr: hire jolly and i to represent you. lol!

 

[RedDragonKnight]

In the Minnesota vs. Dickerson case, Dickerson was unlawfully stopped and searched, there was no probable cause for them to search his person. However, had Dickerson been visually identified as an individual with a warrant, or was witnessed committing a crime by the officers, the search would have been lawful.

This is actually incorrect. In that case, he was stopped lawfully and a terry frisk was also considered lawful. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court and Supreme Court of the United States both ruled that a terry frisk is limited in scope to being a protective pat down. The officer knew Dickerson was unarmed, and his pat down went beyond the outer clothing and into the pockets of Dickerson, which exceeded the scope of a terry frisk. Additionally, the justices of the SCOTUS ruled that the officer determined that the cocaine was contraband only after conducting an expanded search, which went past the plain view doctrine. Because this further search of respondent's pocket was constitutionally invalid, the seizure of the cocaine that followed is likewise unconstitutional.

If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context. However, since the officer in question had to further probe the object by sliding and manipulating it, it was considered not immediately identifiable.

 

[Skratchdat]

This is actually incorrect. In that case, he was stopped lawfully and a terry frisk was also considered lawful. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court and Supreme Court of the United States both ruled that a terry frisk is limited in scope to being a protective pat down. The officer knew Dickerson was unarmed, and his pat down went beyond the outer clothing and into the pockets of Dickerson, which exceeded the scope of a terry frisk. Additionally, the justices of the SCOTUS ruled that the officer determined that the cocaine was contraband only after conducting an expanded search, which went past the plain view doctrine. Because this further search of respondent's pocket was constitutionally invalid, the seizure of the cocaine that followed is likewise unconstitutional.

If a police officer lawfully pats down a suspect's outer clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect's privacy beyond that already authorized by the officer's search for weapons; if the object is contraband, its warrantless seizure would be justified by the same practical considerations that inhere in the plain-view context. However, since the officer in question had to further probe the object by sliding and manipulating it, it was considered not immediately identifiable.

correct me if im wrong here (and im not arguing, im conversing), but what i read was that Dickerson left an apartment building (which was a known trafficking location) and was walking towards a police car (he may have just been walking towards the street where said unit was parked). Upon making eye contact with a police officer, he decided to stop, turn, and walk the other direction and proceed into an alleyway where he was ordered to stop and was searched. What crime did Dickerson commit to be stopped and searched lawfully.

Also i should add im super pro police IRL, so the fact that im defending dickerson means i actually believe his rights were violated.

 

[RedDragonKnight]

correct me if im wrong here (and im not arguing, im conversing), but what i read was that Dickerson left an apartment building (which was a known trafficking location) and was walking towards a police car (he may have just been walking towards the street where said unit was parked). Upon making eye contact with a police officer, he decided to stop, turn, and walk the other direction and proceed into an alleyway where he was ordered to stop and was searched. What crime did Dickerson commit to be stopped and searched lawfully.

Also i should add im super pro police IRL, so the fact that im defending dickerson means i actually believe his rights were violated.

The officer cited reasonable suspicion based upon Dickerson's evasive actions, and the fact that he had left a building known for trafficking cocaine. With reasonable suspicion, he stopped Dickerson to investigate the matter further. The protective pat down authorized by Terry v. Ohio only requires reasonable suspicion to frisk said person if he is reasonably suspected to have committed or about to commit a crime, and he is reasonably suspected to be armed. The trial court ruled the stop and subsequent patdown were lawful under Terry. The court of appeals and supreme court agreed that the stop and the frisk were both valid, but the seizure of cocaine was unconstitutional because it went beyond the scope of Terry.

 

[Jolly]

Once you look past the fancy words it's really quite simple. If you have someone stopped you believe just did something or is about to do something illegal, you are allowed to do a patdown of their outer wardrobe, looking for obvious weapons or stuff that can hurt you. No digging into pockets or trying to get something forced out. If you can't tell what it is, don't dig in unless you are very confident that it may be a weapon. This is all an officer is allowed to do while someone's detained.

I realize I never gave my answer to Summer's question. They had him on suspicion and found meth in his pocket. Going into his pockets would be a violation of what the officers were allowed to do, because they penetrated his outer layer of clothing to get to it. My main argument is that a bag of meth could not be misconstrued as any sort of weapon, so the officer had no right to grab it. The frisk was constitutional, but the meth seizure wouldn't be.

 

[Skratchdat]

The officer cited reasonable suspicion based upon Dickerson's evasive actions, and the fact that he had left a building known for trafficking cocaine. With reasonable suspicion, he stopped Dickerson to investigate the matter further. The protective pat down authorized by Terry v. Ohio only requires reasonable suspicion to frisk said person if he is reasonably suspected to have committed or about to commit a crime, and he is reasonably suspected to be armed. The trial court ruled the stop and subsequent patdown were lawful under Terry. The court of appeals and supreme court agreed that the stop and the frisk were both valid, but the seizure of cocaine was unconstitutional because it went beyond the scope of Terry.

I see what you are saying, I guess if i was representing him I'd be asking how they determined that they had reasonable suspicion. Without being a witness its hard to say just how "evasive" Dickerson was being. That would be my question. Was he profiled? Evasion is defined as "directed towards avoidance or escape." Maybe Dickerson realized he had took off walking in the wrong direction. Can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was, in fact trying to evade the police? Obviously I see how the trial played out and made sense. and I understand that regardless the coke charge was unconstitutional. I'm just curious as to why the events unfolded in the first place, and was it justified (realistically, as many innocent people are "proven guilty")?

 

[Ciggy]

Once you look past the fancy words it's really quite simple. If you have someone stopped you believe just did something or is about to do something illegal, you are allowed to do a patdown of their outer wardrobe, looking for obvious weapons or stuff that can hurt you. No digging into pockets or trying to get something forced out. If you can't tell what it is, don't dig in unless you are very confident that it may be a weapon. This is all an officer is allowed to do while someone's detained.

I realize I never gave my answer to Summer's question. They had him on suspicion and found meth in his pocket. Going into his pockets would be a violation of what the officers were allowed to do, because they penetrated his outer layer of clothing to get to it. My main argument is that a bag of meth could not be misconstrued as any sort of weapon, so the officer had no right to grab it. The frisk was constitutional, but the meth seizure wouldn't be.

In regards to the second part,

Partially true, Terry v Ohio does not limit to just weapons. Officers are trained to identify illegal contraband and weapons during a Terry v Ohio pat-down. Using extensive amounts of training, if an Officer identified it as illegal contraband than it is not in violation of any departmental policy or constitutional right. There's a lot of unanswered questions to this situation that need to be taken into consideration before making a ruling on the outcome.

If the officer proceeded to just straight checking the interior of pockets and clothing without probable cause then that would be a violation of the 4th Amendment right.

If the officer proceeded to pat down the exterior of the clothing and had reason to believe that the subject was carrying illegal contraband in a certain area, then that is a legal frisk under case law Terry v Ohio.

 

[Jolly]

You can always get into the technicalities, which is what the law thrives on. You could attack the officer’s judgement to sway the jury’s opinion or try to argue out the legality of it. Also just saying, identifying a small baggie of coke would be quite difficult unless in an obvious spot/thin layer, I could see so many opportunities to make it look unconstitutional.