Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Frisk

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Frisking the “Lunging Area”: An officer / agent, with lawful authority to conduct a stop and frisk, may frisk not only the person of the suspect for weapons, but also any “lunging area” from which the suspect could obtain a weapon. This will include such nearby areas as a newspaper on the ground, a trash barrel, a jacket in the back seat of a car, under the car seats (if the suspect was originally sitting in the car)

    Comment


    • #47
      Articulated furtive movement on a traffic stop and I will frisk the vehicle. All day long. Twice on Sunday.

      I'm with mdrdep. Some of the things written here are worrying the hell out of me.

      Side note: MG, if you conduct a traffic stop and (for whatever reason you frisk/search) the driver who is in possession of a crack pipe, the entire vehicle can be searched w/o a search warrant and without towing it first. Carroll Doctrine 101. I'm saying "you" but I'm describing the way I'd handle it. Not personal.
      sigpic

      I don't agree with your opinion, but I respect its straightforwardness in terms of wrongness.

      Comment


      • #48
        When I was in the academy, the LAPD provided us with what they call the "SPICE & PEPPER" chart. It is a handy matrix that answers most search questions. I refer to it quite a bit in the field. Here is an image of it.

        Along the side are the subjects of searches (person, home and vehicle.) Along the top are the different types of searches. Each box gives you the legal justifications and scope of the search. The image may be a bit small to read, so here is a link to download a printable PDF http://www.mediafire.com/?weu4rcrzdcz5ze9

        Some of this chart (the part regarding probation/parole searches) is LAPD-specific. However I think you'll find that most of it covers everything you'll need to know.

        Comment


        • #49
          Truly amazing.

          I like the chart.
          Pete Malloy, "The only thing black and white about this job is the car."

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by LPD003 View Post
            I don't think you can have him exit the vehicle and pat him down based solely on his past criminal history. You're going to have to articulate that you believe criminal activity is afoot before you do that. If you can, I'm all for it....
            You can do whatever you want with all of the occupants of the vehicle (except illegal search them) because they are all being lawfully detained on a traffic stop. SCOTUS ruled we don't need PC or RS to get them out. Where I work, everyone I come across that I'm lawfully detaining, or have a lawful reason for interaction, gets a quick pat down.

            If I'm on a traffic stop, everyone in the car gets ID'd. If I have cover there with me and I feel there may be more in the car or on one of them, they all get out and put on the curb. From there I talk to them and either get PC or consent to go into their pockets/car/belongings. I often even go for consent even if I get PC because in court, nothing is better then showing the video and hearing the person consent to the search.
            “The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed."

            "You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by LPD003 View Post
              I don't think you can have him exit the vehicle and pat him down based solely on his past criminal history. You're going to have to articulate that you believe criminal activity is afoot before you do that. If you can, I'm all for it....
              PA v. Mims - you can pull the driver out of the car for any reason.
              MD v. Wilson - you can pull the passenger(s) out of the car for any reason.

              The pat down, in the OP senario is not just solely because of previous criminal history. Re-read the original post.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by mp1161 View Post
                PA v. Mims - you can pull the driver out of the car for any reason.
                MD v. Wilson - you can pull the passenger(s) out of the car for any reason.

                The pat down, in the OP senario is not just solely because of previous criminal history. Re-read the original post.
                Got ya.
                "I sometimes wish that people would put a little more emphasis upon the observance of the law than they do upon its enforcement."
                -Calvin Coolidge

                "Amateurs train until they get it right. Professionals train until they can't get it wrong." - Unk

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Smurfette_76 View Post
                  I'm with mdrdep. Some of the things written here are worrying the hell out of me.
                  +1.
                  Originally posted by kontemplerande
                  Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Another handy card from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center on vehicle searches and vehicle pat downs

                    http://www.fletc.gov/training/progra...rCard.pdf/view

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Good tools to have. I made my own and kept it up to date .
                      Pete Malloy, "The only thing black and white about this job is the car."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by LPD003 View Post
                        Bottom line, you searched a section of his vehicle. You need PC, Consent or Articulable Reasonable Suspicion. I don't think you have any of them in your scenario. If I was the defense attorney, I'd ask the jury if they thought it was reasonable for the officer (someone in the officers position) to reasonably believe that my client was going to off him before you both left the scene. Doesn't make sense to me and actually is unconstitutional. If you were confident that your "officer safety" position was valid, then keep him away from his vehicle and get a warrant for it.

                        Although I see where you're coming from, I think it's far too common for officers to use "officer safety" as an excuse to search someone when they can't really articulate why. I always ask officer why they searched without a warrant and they always say, "Officer Safety!" like I'm an idiot. I'd like them to say, "They were probably going to destroy the evidence and I didn't have time to get a warrant or if I didn't search, he gave me clues that he had a gun in the vehicle by telling me he was going to kill me and I felt he was probably going to do it." It's not a catch all and you can't do anything you want and cry it was for officer safety.
                        I'm late on this thread so excuse me if I missed it, but AZ v. Johnson was another great SCOTUS case about a Terry frisk. Johnson was a backseat passenger, sporting gang colors and mentioned to a female gang officer about living in a gang neighborhood. She did not believe he had committed a crime, was committing a crime, or about to commit a crime (per Terry), but due to the gang colors and possible affiliation, conducted a pat-down. A weapon and drugs were found. The search was upheld due to the officer's articulation about the safety issue. I think this is a closer case in the OPs scenario than all the other cases he mentioned.
                        I'm 10-8 like a shark in a sea of crime..

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Smurfette_76 View Post
                          Side note: MG, if you conduct a traffic stop and (for whatever reason you frisk/search) the driver who is in possession of a crack pipe, the entire vehicle can be searched w/o a search warrant and without towing it first. Carroll Doctrine 101. I'm saying "you" but I'm describing the way I'd handle it. Not personal.
                          Nothing personal at all. After Gant, it's our department/city policy to search passenger compartment only "incident to arrest." We never had "incident to arrest" evidence tossed before Gant (even if it was in the trunk) but they still changed it after Gant came down.

                          I think a lot of these will come down to department policy and how it was followed. In the OP example, our department has a procedure to follow for getting a driver out of the car. It's for officer safety. An officer that didn't follow that procedure and then articulated they felt particularly concerned about the subject as justification for initiating a search, would be in trouble with their supervisor, at a minimum, when they submitted the report. I suspect a defense attorney might ask about it as well if they knew the policy/procedures in place. Conversely, an officer that followed the procedure would find it very easy to articulate his fear as he was concerned enough to initiate a particular course of action and it would read that way in the report.
                          "Did that hurt? It looked like it hurt"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by MG108 View Post
                            Nothing personal at all. After Gant, it's our department/city policy to search passenger compartment only "incident to arrest." We never had "incident to arrest" evidence tossed before Gant (even if it was in the trunk) but they still changed it after Gant came down.

                            I think a lot of these will come down to department policy and how it was followed. In the OP example, our department has a procedure to follow for getting a driver out of the car. It's for officer safety. An officer that didn't follow that procedure and then articulated they felt particularly concerned about the subject as justification for initiating a search, would be in trouble with their supervisor, at a minimum, when they submitted the report. I suspect a defense attorney might ask about it as well if they knew the policy/procedures in place. Conversely, an officer that followed the procedure would find it very easy to articulate his fear as he was concerned enough to initiate a particular course of action and it would read that way in the report.
                            Not trying to jag you, just foreign to me have a policy about getting the driver out...can you explain what you mean?
                            For the cops out there: You are an adult. If you want to write someone, write them. If you don't want to write someone, then don't write them.

                            "Jeff, you are the best cop on this board"-Anonymous Post

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by jeffIL View Post
                              Not trying to jag you, just foreign to me have a policy about getting the driver out...can you explain what you mean?
                              Some of it's tactics related so I won't comment on details. For the stop we have radio call requirements. For driver/passenger extraction we have a numbers requirement. These are for routine stops (i.e. suspected DUI driver extraction), not felony stops which are different procedure.
                              Last edited by MG108; 03-20-2011, 02:09 AM.
                              "Did that hurt? It looked like it hurt"

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3506 users online. 237 members and 3269 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 08:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X