Can a smart PO answer this ?

[Unregistered]

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?

A very insightful question... I'll bite.

Carrol v United States, is the the Supreme Court case that governs these types of searches. “It is well-settled that a valid search of a vehicle moving on a public highway may be had without a warrant, if probable cause for the search exists, i.e., facts sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense is being committed.”

A man of reasonable caution could reasonably believe that the white powdered substance is an illegal drug. Sugar is not usually carried that way and by attempting to hide it from the view of an officer it triggers the belief.

Though I would have different approach. The search of the driver, in my opinion, was pre-mature under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

For their own protection, after a person has been stopped, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry frisk".

From the facts presented in the scenario, I don't believe the officer could articulate reasonable suspicion" based on "specific and articulable facts" that the driver "may be armed and presently dangerous". Now the officer under Michigan v Long and ofificer may frisk a vehicle's passenger compartment including unlocked containers or reasonable suspicion exists an occupant is armed and dangerous. In this case the officer saw in plain view the firearm and may legally retirieve it, it's a safety issue, it'is also illegal to carry a firerarm in that matter in Florida. The white substance was also legally retrieved. At that point the officer should have detained the driver pat him down and secure him for further investigation. The defendant's statment could be understood in many various way to include that he may have a person in the trunk and due to the exigency the trunk could be opened. Regardless the under Carroll v. United States the scope of the search is limited to only what area the officer has probable cause to search but this area can encompass the entire vehicle including the trunk. The motor vehicle exception in addition to allowing officers to search the vehicle also allows officers to search any containers found inside the vehicle that could contain the evidence or contraband being searched for. The objects searched do not need to belong to the owner of the vehicle. In Wyoming v. Houghton, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ownership of objects searched in the vehicle is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the search.

If the a test of the white powder reveals the powder to be sugar then you don't charge but you still have the firearms violation.

Keep in mind that inventory searches are a “well- exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Where evidence is found during a lawfully conducted inventory search, it may be used against the defendant in a later trial. In South Dakota v. Opperman, the Supreme Court outlined three justifications for allowing law enforcement officers to inventory lawfully impounded property without first obtaining a warrant. First, there is a need for law enforcement to protect the owner’s property while it remains in police custody. Second, an inventory protects the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property. And third, an inventory is necessary for the protection of the police from potential dangers that may be located in the property. But let me stress this point...that during an inventory search you are NOT looking for contraband but if you happen to come across it you can legally seize it and charge the subject.


Of course I know of only three cops in this agency that would actually take the time to read this.

[Unregistered]

A very insightful question... I'll bite.

...

Of course I know of only three cops in this agency that would actually take the time to read this.

Very thorough but you have still not established probable cause for an arrest. As I stated above, until you run a query and establish that he doesn't have a concealed weapons permit in Florida or one of the other reciprocal states, you're still making an unconstitutional arrest and anything seized will not be admissible and therefore suppressed.

[Unregistered]

Very thorough but you have still not established probable cause for an arrest. As I stated above, until you run a query and establish that he doesn't have a concealed weapons permit in Florida or one of the other reciprocal states, you're still making an unconstitutional arrest and anything seized will not be admissible and therefore suppressed.

There is no right answer to your stupid 5 page riddle. There are several variables that can go one way or another.

In Florida, you don't need a concealed weapons permit to have a gun in a car.

The concealed weapon permit is only for weapons that are concealed on someone's person.

I would detain the driver, run the gun and test the "powder"

As far as the trunk...

Ask him, "do you mind if I look in the trunk? I'm really curious as to what surprises you have in store"

If he says no, get a K9.

If the gun comes back clean and the powder is sweet & low, and there is no K9 available, unload the weapon and tell him he's free to go but you need to place the gun and ammo in the trunk for officer safety.

If he still refuses to open the trunk, give him a property receipt for the gun and tell him to keep it moving.

Lost and found is at the station 9am to 5pm Monday thru Friday.

Improper storage of a firearm could be cited.

I'm sure some smart guy on here will find flaws in this too. But there will never be a 100% correct answer due to all the variables.