Get Active Subscribe Support Us

TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE ON POLICE STOPS ( PART 1 )

If you have been reading my columns over the past couple of years, you have learned a lot about the constitutionality of police traffic stops, investigative detentions, reasonable suspicion and probable cause.  Here is a chance for all you armchair lawyers out there to take a stab at some actual cases that I read about in some bulletins that I receive where the actions of the police were challenged in court.  This is the first of a series of columns.

Case #1:

State of Idaho v.  Faith, Idaho State Court of Appeals ( 2005 )

An officer on routine early morning patrol checked a motel parking lot for stolen vehicles and suspicious persons trying to commit vehicle burglaries.  He saw what appeared to be an abandoned vehicle, and upon running a license check, found it to be registered to a man named Flynn, who had two outstanding arrest warrants against him.  The officer called for backup to help search for Flynn.  After conducting some investigation, the officers returned to the car, only to find a man reclined on the front seat.  After the officers ordered the man out of the car, he identified himself, not as Flynn, but as Faith.  The officers handcuffed him behind his back until they could confirm his identity.  As they moved Faith away from the car, they noticed a knife blade poking out of the snow by the curb.  One officer immediately conducted an officer safety pat down search of Faith, and in so doing, noted that the front vest pocket contained an object that felt like it was "about an inch thick, and about the diameter of a baseball." The officer testified that he did not think the object was a weapon, but heard something "jingling around in it", so he removed the object, which turned out to be an Altoids lozenge tin.  He handed it to the other officer, who opened it to discover methamphetamine residue and drug paraphernalia.  Faith was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine.

Faith moved to suppress the evidence, but the trial court judge denied the motion.  Faith appealed the denial of the motion, arguing that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by manipulating, removing, and opening the tin.

Question # 1:

Did the appeals court affirm the lower court's ruling, or reverse it?

Case # 2:

Idaho v.  Bingham, Idaho State Court of Appeals ( 2005 )

An officer on patrol of a residential neighborhood observed Bingham walking towards him at four o'clock in the morning.  The officer thought it was an unusual time for someone to be walking the streets, so he stopped his patrol car to speak to Bingham.  The officer recognized Bingham, but could not recall his name.  Upon the officer's request, Bingham identified himself, and the officer recognized Bingham's name from a warrant list he had seen.  He radioed in to confirm the existence of the outstanding warrant, and when he received confirmation, he arrested Bingham.  He then searched Bingham incidental to the arrest, and discovered a small quantity of methamphetamine.  Bingham asked the court to suppress the evidence because the methamphetamine was a product of an illegal detention.  ( Note: An individual is considered "seized" when an officer, by way of physical force or authority, restricts the individual's freedom.  To be lawful, such a "seizure" or detention must be based upon reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, or actual probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime.  If, however, a reasonable person feels that he is free to leave or decline the officer's request, the encounter is considered consensual.  In this case, there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause present.  ) A lot hinged upon whether the officer asked, "Hey, can I speak to you for a minute?" or said, "Hey, you, come over here!" as alleged by Bingham.  The court denied Bingham's motion, and he appealed.

Question # 2:

Did the appeals court affirm the lower court's ruling, or reverse it?

Answer # 1:

The appeals court reversed the lower court and sent the case back.  The detention, use of handcuffs, and justification for the frisk were proper, under the circumstances.  The only question for the appeals court was if the proper scope of the search had been exceeded.  The court ruled that the manipulation of the tin through Faith's clothing was necessary as part of a valid search for weapons.  However, the removal of the tin was unnecessary to protect the officers, and therefore outside the scope of a legal search, since Faith was not under arrest at the time.  It was obviously not a weapon, and it was highly unlikely that Faith, who was handcuffed behind his back, could have retrieved the tin from his front vest pocket, even if it did contain some sort of small instrument that could be used as a weapon.  Further, even if the removal of the tin had been justified, it posed no danger to the officers once it was in their possession, and there was no reason to open it.

My comment:

If the officers had asked Faith if he had any weapons or drugs on him, and he had said, "Yes, in the tin in my vest pocket," then the officers would have had a legal basis to seize and examine the contents of the tin.  However, they never asked the question.

Answer # 2:

The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision.

The officer was justified to arrest Bingham and search him on the basis of the outstanding arrest warrant.  The appeals court did not even consider the lawfulness of the original stop, and ruled that even if the initial stop had been unlawful, the discovery of the outstanding arrest warrant compelled the officer to make the arrest, and any search incident to the arrest would be lawful under such circumstances.  The intervening event was the existence of the warrant, which outweighed the lawfulness of the stop as a deciding factor in the lawfulness of the search and seizure of the methamphetamine.

Gary Robinette is a retired FBI agent of 26 years, who resides in Cartersville and focuses on law enforcement subjects.  He heads a consulting group that provides police training and expert consultation in law enforcement litigation.  He can be e-mailed at frobinette@msn.com.