Can a smart PO answer this ?

[Charlie1]

Officer Bird was patrolling downtown Center City late Saturday night. Primarily, she was on the lookout for drunk drivers after the bars closed, but violent incidents were on the rise in the area, so she was also looking for suspicious activity. She had just pulled over across the street from the Central Pub when a red sports car went speeding by. Officer Bird turned on her siren and pursued the sports car. The car pulled over, and Officer Bird approached the vehicle. When she got to the door, she noticed the driver shoving something under the front seat. She rapped on the window, and the driver, visibly angry, rolled it down.
“What?” he said.
 Officer Bird told him to step out of the vehicle. The driver slammed the door and stepped toward Officer Bird. She then ordered him to turn around and place his hands on the roof of the vehicle. The man swore, but he complied. Officer Bird did a weapons pat-down and did not find a weapon.
“OK, Sir, now I need to see some identification.” When the man handed over his license, she saw that his name was Alejandro Quintana. Before running his license, she shined her flashlight in the sports car. Sticking out from under the front seat, she saw a revolver. She seized it. In addition, she also saw a small bag containing a white powdery substance next to the revolver. She seized that as well.
“You should see what’s in the trunk,” Quintana said menacingly.
 Officer Bird just placed Quintana under arrest, and did not check out the trunk.

What are the grounds for a lawful vehicle search after a traffic stop?

What Supreme Court decision(s) governs this activity?

Did Officer Bird’s actions (search and arrest) satisfy the constitutional requirement(s)?

Could Officer Bird have legally searched the trunk? Why or why not?

[Unregistered]

What are the grounds for a lawful vehicle search after a traffic stop?

What Supreme Court decision(s) governs this activity?

Did Officer Bird’s actions (search and arrest) satisfy the constitutional requirement(s)?

Could Officer Bird have legally searched the trunk? Why or why not?

1.Yes

2.YES

3.YESSSS

4.YESSSSSSS

[Unregistered]

Since Gant vs Arizona, police search of a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest have been restricted. After wading through the usual legal bloviation generally encountered in most USSC’s decisions, here is the most salient paragraph: “Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.”

Because you cite, this officer “shined her flashlight in the sports car” and from a ‘Non-Constitutionally protected area [one must accept] the officer saw “sticking out from under the front seat . . . a revolver . . . and a small bag containing a white powdery substance next to the revolver,” the prosecuting ASA could argue these facts meet Gant's “reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” As to the subject’s comment: “you should see what’s in the trunk,” the prudent; wise thing to do is: do not open the trunk, call for a narcotics detection K9, given suspect narcotics were found under the driver’s seat, should the narcotic detection K9 alert, seal the trunk and get a search warrant. As part of your search warrant affidavit, include participation form the narcotics detection K9 officer, GIU and Legal Bureau. they can help on the search warrant part. Caveat, a defendant may challenge the narcotics detection K9 alert under: “ the correct approach, a probable-cause hearing focusing on a dog’s alert should proceed much like any other, with the court allowing the parties to make their best case and evaluating the totality of the circumstances." Remember, police stops are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s "Reasonableness Standard," so each stop and enforcement step you take must comply with the cited standard. In the old days we called it ‘dotting your Is and crossing your Ts!"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html

https://www.goldsteinhilley.com/pres...g-searches/#iv

[Unregistered]

OK now let's talk about the true reason we would search the trunk. We will be impounding his vehicle. Therefore, a inventory of the vehicles contents must be done including the trunk. You don't want to be the officer who impounded a vehicle with a dead body in the trunk and then have to hear about your failure to properly inventory the vehicle. You charge him if there is anything in the trunk illegal and like all other cases in Miami Dade the SAO will drop it if it is not a slam dunk for sure win for them. They do not know how to argue the case or any case for that matter. You have completely done your job and the end result is if he has 50 kilos of cocaine in the trunk he may not get convicted but he won't get his coke back either. Now the upside to your search and seizure is that the main dealer that he is transporting the stuff for is going to be pissed and probably kill the guy anyway. Long story short........Problem Solved.

[Unregistered]

The officer found the firearm and drugs in plain view,using her flashlight from outside the vehicle,never walking inside it. So that one one holos up. Also unless laws changed, if someone is seen trying to hide something in the car, prior to police walking up and is seen by police they have now reasonable suspicion to believe he was hiding contraband, a firearm or any other illegal thing that a warrant less search is not needed. The check would be A wingspan check of the drivers immediate area, because his movement and actions created reasonable suspicion. Obviously a search incident is a no brainier.

[Unregistered]

The officer found the firearm and drugs in plain view,using her flashlight from outside the vehicle,never walking inside it. So that one one holos up. Also unless laws changed, if someone is seen trying to hide something in the car, prior to police walking up and is seen by police they have now reasonable suspicion to believe he was hiding contraband, a firearm or any other illegal thing that a warrant less search is not needed. The check would be A wingspan check of the drivers immediate area, because his movement and actions created reasonable suspicion. Obviously a search incident is a no brainier.

free legal advice?????

[Unregistered]

The only issue with an inventory search is the pertinent case law says that an inventory search of a vehicle may be conducted prior to a vehicle being impounded, however it must be in compliance with departmental rules. Our SOP says that you must give the arrestee the opportunity to have someone pick up the vehicle or show some reason why the vehicle could not be secured and left on scene. A defense attorney could argue that your search was done illegally if these requirements are not met.

[Unregistered]

Since Gant vs Arizona, police search of a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest have been restricted. After wading through the usual legal bloviation generally encountered in most USSC’s decisions, here is the most salient paragraph: “Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Arizona Supreme Court correctly held that this case involved an unreasonable search. Accordingly, the judgment of the State Supreme Court is affirmed.”

Because you cite, this officer “shined her flashlight in the sports car” and from a ‘Non-Constitutionally protected area [one must accept] the officer saw “sticking out from under the front seat . . . a revolver . . . and a small bag containing a white powdery substance next to the revolver,” the prosecuting ASA could argue these facts meet Gant's “reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” As to the subject’s comment: “you should see what’s in the trunk,” the prudent; wise thing to do is: do not open the trunk, call for a narcotics detection K9, given suspect narcotics were found under the driver’s seat, should the narcotic detection K9 alert, seal the trunk and get a search warrant. As part of your search warrant affidavit, include participation form the narcotics detection K9 officer, GIU and Legal Bureau. they can help on the search warrant part. Caveat, a defendant may challenge the narcotics detection K9 alert under: “ the correct approach, a probable-cause hearing focusing on a dog’s alert should proceed much like any other, with the court allowing the parties to make their best case and evaluating the totality of the circumstances." Remember, police stops are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s "Reasonableness Standard," so each stop and enforcement step you take must comply with the cited standard. In the old days we called it ‘dotting your Is and crossing your Ts!"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html

https://www.goldsteinhilley.com/pres...g-searches/#iv

You are either retired and did police work in the 80s or you are not a cop. A road unit will never do a search warrant for a car no matter what. Second, he will have his Sgt and Lt asking him to clear for all the calls holding. Third, we can't give tickets cause we don't have tickets. Fourth, our cops can't find a crime if they got slapped in the face. Just look at all the liberal ass comments in this section and all the defense attorneys that work here. Can you arrest F yea, can you search F yea, can I do it over and over again to take a scumbag off the streets aF yea. My job is to find PC and arrest. The states job is to prove it point period

[Unregistered]

The only issue with an inventory search is the pertinent case law says that an inventory search of a vehicle may be conducted prior to a vehicle being impounded, however it must be in compliance with departmental rules. Our SOP says that you must give the arrestee the opportunity to have someone pick up the vehicle or show some reason why the vehicle could not be secured and left on scene. A defense attorney could argue that your search was done illegally if these requirements are not met.

You would be correct except the fact that we just received a memo that says we will check with a supervisor to impound a car. However, I would love to be there when you hand over a car to friend with a dead body or 25 kilos of cocaine in the trunk. I will gladly attend your County hearing when your trying to get your job back and tell them why you are unfit to be a cop due to a lack of properly searching a vehicle before turning it over. Orrrrrrrr....... when you are brought into court when the friend you let leave with the car gets stopped by the trooper down the street and according to you he does a illegal search (does his job) and arrests the driver for whatever he has in the trunk. You will be the one paying his attorneys fees and the civil case because the county won't back you for acting beyond the scope of what you were trained to do.

The law is black and white. Police work is done in the grey area because it is necessary.

[Unregistered]

You would be correct except the fact that we just received a memo that says we will check with a supervisor to impound a car. However, I would love to be there when you hand over a car to friend with a dead body or 25 kilos of cocaine in the trunk. I will gladly attend your County hearing when your trying to get your job back and tell them why you are unfit to be a cop due to a lack of properly searching a vehicle before turning it over. Orrrrrrrr....... when you are brought into court when the friend you let leave with the car gets stopped by the trooper down the street and according to you he does a illegal search (does his job) and arrests the driver for whatever he has in the trunk. You will be the one paying his attorneys fees and the civil case because the county won't back you for acting beyond the scope of what you were trained to do.

The law is black and white. Police work is done in the grey area because it is necessary.

Wow! Typical new ***** cops that we've been hiring. "The sop says". Always worried about liability. Grow a pair of balls!