4th Amendment debate

[Parminio]

I'd like to get you police officers to give me some opinions on this:

In my textbook, the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson comes up. (The skinny: A police cruiser was on routine patrol when they spotted Dickerson coming up the street from a known crack area. At first, Dickerson was walking right towards them. When Dickerson saw them, he turned around and went the other way, ducking into an ally. The police followed him and stopped him for "stop and frisk". They found a lump in his pocket that one officer felt and "thoroughly examined it" with his fingers before determining that it was probably cocain. They pulled the lump out of his pocket, and sure enough, it was cocain.)

The evidence was excluded because the "thorough examination" was ruled to have gone beyond the Terry v Ohio allowance. However, in another case on our test this week, there was a man (they didn't quote the case) walking down the street in a similar area with an "opaque" bag. The police did a stop and frisk, examined the bag and found it to be a bit heavy. Upon feeling it further, they though they made out the shape of a gun. The search was deemed legal.

Now, I am being told that since the bag was not his person that it wasn't protected by the Terry v. Ohio standard.

But what's the difference? If it were a woman and the bag was a purse, the same would apply, but for some reason it doesn't.

Have any of you officers run across this scenario, and if so, how do you handle it based on Terry?

[BJJVad]

I'd like to get you police officers to give me some opinions on this:

In my textbook, the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson comes up. (The skinny: A police cruiser was on routine patrol when they spotted Dickerson coming up the street from a known crack area. At first, Dickerson was walking right towards them. When Dickerson saw them, he turned around and went the other way, ducking into an ally. The police followed him and stopped him for "stop and frisk". They found a lump in his pocket that one officer felt and "thoroughly examined it" with his fingers before determining that it was probably cocain. They pulled the lump out of his pocket, and sure enough, it was cocain.)

The evidence was excluded because the "thorough examination" was ruled to have gone beyond the Terry v Ohio allowance. However, in another case on our test this week, there was a man (they didn't quote the case) walking down the street in a similar area with an "opaque" bag. The police did a stop and frisk, examined the bag and found it to be a bit heavy. Upon feeling it further, they though they made out the shape of a gun. The search was deemed legal.

Now, I am being told that since the bag was not his person that it wasn't protected by the Terry v. Ohio standard.

But what's the difference? If it were a woman and the bag was a purse, the same would apply, but for some reason it doesn't.

Have any of you officers run across this scenario, and if so, how do you handle it based on Terry?

Hi Parminio

I got a couple questions for you..

1.) Let's say you owned a store in Suwanee, GA. and.... a bunch of crackheads were selling dope in front of your place, deterring people from coming to your business.

What would you want the police to do?

2.) Let's say you owned a house in Suwanee, GA. and.... a bunch of crackheads were selling dope in front of your place, in front of you, your wife, and your kids.

What would you want the police to do?

-------------

Sometimes Judges and Court rulings IMO make some dumb decisions in favor of the idiots. In this case, I do believe the verbage in Terry vs Ohio in relation to clothing was an issue.

Oddly enough I think you can find this type of topic on Wikipedia explaining as much.

[cntryboy0531]

Both are legit and Terry V. Ohio applies to both.

With Terry V. Ohio it affirms the right of L.E. to stop and frisk for the purpose of officer safety. Depending on circumstances around a stop, I can pat someone down (not search) for the detection of weapons. During that pat down if I "readily feel" something that I believe to be contraband or a weapon, I can then conduct a search. By readily feel it is meant by simply touching the surface of the clothing. Grabbing, manipulating, or rummaging through pockets may make the search Illegal. You can do the same for bags and such.

Point being, if through my training and experiance, I readily feel something that I detect as contrband or weapons during my pat down, I can search.

The problem in the first case was doing "thorough examination". Made the search illegal. Second case, they felt it could be a weapon. Which is a good search. Clear as mud, right?

[DeltaV]

IHowever, in another case on our test this week, there was a man (they didn't quote the case) walking down the street in a similar area with an "opaque" bag. The police did a stop and frisk, examined the bag and found it to be a bit heavy. Upon feeling it further, they though they made out the shape of a gun. The search was deemed legal.

I'd need to see the case to give an answer as to why the search was deemed legal. Terry requires the frisk to initially be limited to the person's clothing. While I'm not aware of any court cases that have specifically addressed the issue of things carried by the subject, I believe that a "frisk" of these items would be allowed as long as the officer can establish that the item was in the immediate possession of the subject and that a weapon could be easily retrieved. Obviously the elements justifying the initial frisk would need to be established as well. It's all in how the frisk is articulated. The same goes for motor vehicles. If the elements of Terry are met, an officer can conduct a "frisk" of the passenger compartment of a vehicle for weapons.

[greg72982]

cocaine*

[Samuel]

I'd like to get you police officers to give me some opinions on this:

In my textbook, the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson comes up. (The skinny: A police cruiser was on routine patrol when they spotted Dickerson coming up the street from a known crack area. At first, Dickerson was walking right towards them. When Dickerson saw them, he turned around and went the other way, ducking into an ally. The police followed him and stopped him for "stop and frisk". They found a lump in his pocket that one officer felt and "thoroughly examined it" with his fingers before determining that it was probably cocain. They pulled the lump out of his pocket, and sure enough, it was cocain.)

The evidence was excluded because the "thorough examination" was ruled to have gone beyond the Terry v Ohio allowance. However, in another case on our test this week, there was a man (they didn't quote the case) walking down the street in a similar area with an "opaque" bag. The police did a stop and frisk, examined the bag and found it to be a bit heavy. Upon feeling it further, they though they made out the shape of a gun. The search was deemed legal.

Now, I am being told that since the bag was not his person that it wasn't protected by the Terry v. Ohio standard.

But what's the difference? If it were a woman and the bag was a purse, the same would apply, but for some reason it doesn't.

Have any of you officers run across this scenario, and if so, how do you handle it based on Terry?

What was the ruling, verbatim, of Terry vs Ohio?

[Parminio]

Both are legit and Terry V. Ohio applies to both.

With Terry V. Ohio it affirms the right of L.E. to stop and frisk for the purpose of officer safety. Depending on circumstances around a stop, I can pat someone down (not search) for the detection of weapons. During that pat down if I "readily feel" something that I believe to be contraband or a weapon, I can then conduct a search. By readily feel it is meant by simply touching the surface of the clothing. Grabbing, manipulating, or rummaging through pockets may make the search Illegal. You can do the same for bags and such.

Point being, if through my training and experiance, I readily feel something that I detect as contrband or weapons during my pat down, I can search.

The problem in the first case was doing "thorough examination". Made the search illegal. Second case, they felt it could be a weapon. Which is a good search. Clear as mud, right?

I see your point, and that makes sense to me. Thank you very much all for the comments.