Violation of Fourth Amendment Rights

[RLMSC]

Mommy Of Four

No convenience in the answers. I did not feel the neccessity to explain all of the situtaion in great detail. I only wanted to know about the search and seizure. Didn't need your driving critique. We believe in God and are looking for justice. That is what our country is founded upon.
The poster seemed to have very short one-sided answers. Obviously many officers such as the one in the case against my relative don't know the law at all. You were not asked about the traffic stop. You were asked was this illegal search and seizure. The question can only be answered by an unbiased individual who knows actual laws.
The medical situtation is not relevant to the search and neither have your answers been! Unless, you can offer sound legal advice backed up by proof please don't waste my time!
I'm sure your kids would rather you spend your time doing something for them instead of giving answers and critiques to the wrong information in a posting.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

The officer had the right to pat down your relative to insure his safety. During the pat down, he felt something in the pocket through the fabric. Not an illegal search. ILLEGAL DRUGS.

 

[David Jonathan]

We don't know if the officer asked for permission about the search. All we can see is your relative was stopped, illegal drugs were found, your relative was arrested, and now you want to find how you can help this relative get away with doing something illegal.

I don't know if I'm speaking for anyone else, but I sure don't enjoy reading a post where the the original poster gets pissy when they don't read the answer they want to hear. So, go pay an attorney for your answers, because I don't feel anyone should try to help you, help your relative continue with their illegal activities.

--Dave.

 

[mommyof4]

No convenience in the answers. I did not feel the neccessity to explain all of the situtaion in great detail. I only wanted to know about the search and seizure. Didn't need your driving critique. We believe in God and are looking for justice. That is what our country is founded upon.
The poster seemed to have very short one-sided answers. Obviously many officers such as the one in the case against my relative don't know the law at all. You were not asked about the traffic stop. You were asked was this illegal search and seizure. The question can only be answered by an unbiased individual who knows actual laws.
The medical situtation is not relevant to the search and neither have your answers been! Unless, you can offer sound legal advice backed up by proof please don't waste my time!
I'm sure your kids would rather you spend your time doing something for them instead of giving answers and critiques to the wrong information in a posting.

That's it? Trying to insult my parenting is the only thing you can think of?

If you want your ACCURATE answers, first post an accurate question and then go ask a cop, a lawyer, and a judge. See what they say.

 

[RLMSC]

Dave

My relative touched the line no more than twice during an over 2.5 mile following through intersections, stop signs, turns to the left and right, etc.
The officer didn't ask permission to search the pocket, he reached in and preceeded on his own. The officer did admit under oath that at no time was he in fear of his life. This was before the search and all during the whole process. This was asked while the officer was being questioned. The officer also admitted he didn't ever suspect any drugs, alcohol. or weapons at any time during the incident. This all was asked under oath and has been appropriately documented by the court. The officer was indeed asked did he ever feel like there were weapons, drugs, or alcohol before making the subject get out of the car. Teh officer said no I never suspected any of those things and was at no time in fear of my life for any reason. Maybe this will help clarify a little more for you.
I would appreciate if you would reply now, because you do seem to have some knowledge of some kind. I am not looking for an answer to placate myself or my relative just an appropriate one. My relative was caught with something illegal and that isn't right. I know this and understand how people may feel. He, however, is very sick and is in continuous pain. He does use a doctor for treatment but the pain and sickness involved overwhelm him at some moments.
We do not want a good man to be judged for trying to stay alive and keep living. He has a family. He doesn't want to cause pain to his family. He just wants to know if his rights were violated. It shouldn't matter what was found. Your rights are yours and they deserve protection.

 

[David Jonathan]

based on what you said, there might be a SLIGHT chance that they (your relatives rights) were violated, again, that's based on your facts. You'd really have to hire an attorney to review everything, all the paperwork, reports, and if there happens to be a dash camera that recorded the events that took place. Otherwise, it's your relatives word against the officers word, guess who they're going to believe.

You may want to contact your local ACLU office to see if they are able to help you with this.

And seriously, before you continue with anything, you should get this relative into a drug rehab program, whether or not the case is dropped because of any type of search, that's a moot point. Marijuana is illegal in South Carolina, it IS a controled substance, altho a bill has been introduced to allow marijuana to be used as a prescription drug to treat some medical conditions in South Carolina (2/19/2007) it has not yet passed, thus it's still illegal.

You'll need to hire a local attorney to look over ALL the evidence.

--Dave.

 

[RLMSC]

Mommy of Four & Racer 72 & Dave

The first details were pretty clear as to what the officer had said under oath. The trivial points were left out. I wanted to know based on the officers own sworn statements what could be done. The traffic stop was not the problem! That had been handled!
I didn't criticize your parenting I don't even know you. I simply said your time could be spent better doing something for your children instead of not answering the question.
For Racer 72
You're just simply rude. I don't live in a trailer park. I live in a big home in a prominent neighborhood. Sorry for your assumptions! I can't help that you are obviously a miserable person in your old age! May you find happiness and calmness!
For Dave
Thanks for finally asking the questions that seemed to be relevant to the original question. I understand about the laws in my state and will offfer your advice to my relative.
The documents from the court have been obtained. There was no dashboard camera. However, we are hoping based on the testimony from the officer we may have some hope for my relative. The officer did change testimony and the contradictions in his own testimony have been recorded. Maybe this will help my relative show that the officer was not truthful or lawful in his actions. This is a sad case all around. We trust the officers of the court to follow the rules and so should we. Hopefully, all of this will help my relative learn to stay inside the law also. This was not something he had done many times, but the costs can be great in a state where the law has not been passed yet. Thanks for your insights. I am glad you were courteous enough to respond despite the earlier postings.

To each of you involved in this posting:
My intentions were to get answers to help a sick person. This was not a relevant part to the story until rude comments were made. That is why I offered up more information. The traffic case was not my question. The question was the search. The pertinent information should have been the words of the officers own sworn statements. I hold no hostility towards anyone and hope that the world can live in peace and in harmony. May we all realize that life is to short to judge and be evil! We should spend our time trying to help not harm others. If anyone else has information that may lead insight to this situation please post it.

 

[Ozark_Sophist]

The officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle and ask the driver to step out. He is then allowed to frisk the individual for his own safety. It depends if the officer could determine what the contraband was through the fabric.

frisking
Frisking is a “patdown” of a person's outer clothing wherein a police officer or other law enforcement agent runs his or her hands along the outer garments to detect any concealed weapons or other contraband.

In the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court of the United States held that police have the ability to do a limited search for weapons of areas within the suspect’s control based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person stopped was "armed and dangerous" and had been, is, or was about to engage in a criminal act. The type of frisk authorized by this decision has become known as a Terry stop and frisk or simply Terry stop.

Pursuant to the “plain feel” doctrine, police may seize not only weapons discovered in a Terry stop but also contraband when the contraband nature of such is immediately apparent to the officer. An officer may not, however, seize such contraband if its identity is not immediately apparent to the officer upon administering the frisking.​

 

[RLMSC]

Ozark

Thanks for the help.
The officer under oath stated he was never in any danger and suspected no weapons before the search. He also didn't suspect any drugs, alcohol, or etc. So why would he then ask a person to get out of their car and search them. When he testified he didn't suspect any criminal activity at all? This is where we begin to wonder about it being an illegal search? What was his reason or probable cause to have acted in the manner he did when he says the things he did under oath? He offered no reasonable reason at all for the search. That is why we are questioning the whole situtation.
It couldn't fall under the Ohio -Terry law because he testified he didn't feel at any time that my relative was in any way armed or dangerous. The officer stated under oath that my relative was respectful during the whole process, the tag and car were clear, and didn't smell or suspect drugs or alcohol!
In my experience when I have been issued traffic tickets I was asked for my liscense, registration, and proof of insurance. I was either given a warning or citation, and sent on my way.
Any thoughts as to what this means now that I've hopefully provided a little more detail?

 

[panzertanker]

I am confused...

Did you not state in post #13:

There are no assumptions in this case. It has been won! It was proven that there was no sufficient cause for the stop. My RELATIVE is a cancer patient and never drives while under the influence of any substances!!

???

If the case is over, then what is the question?

 

[tranquility]

I'm not going to walk through the whole thing as writing essays takes too much time. Everything is easily supportable depending on the facts. The things you are focusing on are not necessarily important. To narrow things down, let me divide this into some issues and you tell us where you believe the violation lies.

1. The stop
2. The request/demand to exit the vehicle
3. The pat down search
4. The taking of the pipe out of the pocket physical search

After you do that, make your case and I'll tell you what the other side will say. Then we can determine which facts will be decided by a fact finder and the law related to that.

If the criminal part of the case is done and you are talking civil, you have two problems. The first is damages and the second is qualified immunity. How much was the person hurt *from the violation*? Don't include damages which are sourced to the illegal material found, only to the illegal action of the government. Google qualified immunity and try to figure if a reasonable officer would believe there was a Constitutional violation in addition to there acutally being a violation.

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? South Carolina
A close relative of mine was recently pulled over on a "routine traffic" stop. The officer said he crossed the center line a couple of times. He never completely went into the other lane and there was no oncoming traffic. We had a preliminary hearing and the officer was questioned. The officer stated under oath that he was not in fear of his life and didn't feel threatened at any time. He also stated that he didn't suspect any use of alcohol or drugs. He also said that he didn't suspect that the subject had any weapons on him. He asked the subject to get out of the car and put his hands on the roof of the car. The subject did as asked and the officer patted him down. The officer said he felt something in his pocket and reached in. He found a pipe and drugs at that time. The officer said the subject was respectful at all times. Was this a violation of his fourth amendment rights for illegal search and seizure?What is the name of your state?

Q: Was this a violation of his fourth amendment rights for illegal search and seizure?

A: No; this was within the stop and frisk guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.

 

[RLMSC]

Thanks to all who have offered advice or comments.
The traffic case has been won!
The only case we were trying to figure out now was if there was enough action to file a civil suit based on the search being illegal.
There seems to still be too much confusion on this sight to get the advice we need.
Some points have been very valid ones, for that, we appreciate them!
I have tried to the best of my ability to explain the whole situation and may not have done a good job doing so.
We do have some advice that was given and that is to take it all to the ACLU or a lawyer.
This I believe is the choice to make.
As stated earlier today time is of the essence and we appreciate all that each of you offered us in every way!
I wish each of you the best and keep up the work offering advice.
This closes my postings as I don't have enough time to continue reading or responding.
I hope you each help people find the answers they need.

 

[LOST4815]

um...

When a police officer pulls over a car, he/she does have the right to search the entire passenger compartment and any containers, ie jackets because the car is considered "ready mobility." That is one exception the a warrent requirement, and I'm sure you've heard of "plain sight" but this exception isn't just applied to the one of five senses. It also includes, scent, if an officer pulls over a car and smells pot, that's considered "plain sight." Also, I know that you said that the officer said in court, under oath, that he did not believe his life was in danger and that he believed your relative was not dangerous, BUT, it is standard police procedure to pat down a "suspect" for weapons, regardless of whether or not they feel the suspect is dangerous. A lot of suspects are good actors and can put on a show for the cop and then when the cop least expects it "bang bang" or "slash slash." So it is standard police procedure to do the pat down for weapons and when the officer felt something that could be a possible weapon (knife?) in your relatives pocket, it would be standard police procedure to remove the weapon. It just so happened that the supposed weapon was drug paraphenillia.