Sunday, June 3, 2012
If the first was justified where officer loss or more following two-step process. Officer must patdown first, and then intrude beneath the surface only to counsel something which feels like a weapon. A number of courts have emphasized that officers not justified in concluding that a search may be conducted if the object felt a soft, if the object is heart and the substantial size and the officer may remove the item. If the object is that which the officer believes to be a weapon, the officer may only take such action as is necessary to examine the weapon, or as McFadden did in Terry remove the object. If the object obtained by the officer turns out to be illegally concealed weapon or contraband, the officer may at that point arrest a suspect and then conduct a full-blown search. In the airport drug courier profile situation in United States v. Smith 649 app 2nd 305 The Court referred to reasonable narcotics patdown and stated that if the defendant consented to a patdown of the undergarments and the officer felt was seen to be contraband inside pocket, he could reach his hand inside and remove the substance. In the 1993 case of Minnesota v. Dickerson United States Kring Court held that it was conducting a legitimate Terry search the officer should discover contraband other than weapons he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband and the 4th amendment does not require its suppression. If however the police lacked a reasonable belief that object felt was contraband or a weapon the officer has no authority to squeeze, slide, or otherwise manipulate the contents of the defendant's pocket, after the officer noticed a pocket does not contain a weapon, in order to determine if the object is contraband.' In Seaman v. State Georgia recognize the plain feel doctrine and affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress where an experienced narcotics officer in the course of the Terry patdown felt what he believed to be a clear plastic baggie containing contraband. There was no evidence the officer manipulated the object in the defendant's pocket any way before identifying it. Further in the Georgia case of Buffington v. State 229 Ga. App. 450 1997 The Court of also apply the plain field test as to a crack pipe in the defendant's pocket because a police officer immediately recognized the pipe as a drug-related objects. If you are charged with drug possession from an unlawful search contact a Paulding County drug lawyer.
Paulding County lawyers want to prevent violations of the Constitution when their clients liberty is at stake. In peters v. State 242 Ga. App. 816 2000 The Court pointed to the United States Supreme Court holding stating that there are at least theoretically 3 tiers of police citizen encounters: one communication between police and citizens involving no coercion or detention and therefore without the compass of the 4th amendment, number 23 seizures that must be supported by reasonable suspicion, 3 full-scale arrest that must be supported by probable cause. In the first year police officers may approach citizens, ask for identification, and freely question a citizen without any basis for belief that the citizen is involved in criminal activity as long as the officers not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave. The second-tier occurs when the officer actually conducts a brief investigatory stop of the citizen. In this level, a police officer even in the absence of probable cause may stop persons and detain them briefly when the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the persons are involved in criminal activity. If there is a sufficient articulable suspicion to stop a suspect or a suspect permits an officer to talk with him, encounter must not go further than brief questioning a suspect by the officer unless, after questioning, the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has contraband or if the officer has a justified belief that persons not may be armed and dangerous. If there is a sufficient articulable suspicion to stop a suspect or a suspect permits officer talked with them, encounter must not go further than brief questioning of a suspect by the officer unless after questioning, the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has contraband or if the officer has a justified belief that the person stopped may be armed and dangerous. Likewise an officer may check for outstanding warrants in criminal history is on the occupants of the vehicle at about traffic stop, provided the officer's justifiable and safety concern. If the officer at the end of the stop has probable cause to believe the suspect has contraband in a arrest the suspect and then conduct a full-fledged search incident to the arrest. If the officer reasonably believes the suspect is armed and dangerous, he may frisk the suspect for weapons. The frisk however may not be justified but desired to discover or prevent the destruction of evidence in the absence of probable cause and a valid stop alone does not justify a frisk. Under the rule adopted in Terry v. Ohio, a frisk is a search within the meaning of the 4th amendment. The Court in Terry also said that unlike a search conducted incident to a lawful arrest, the scope of the frisk must be limited to an intrusion reasonably necessary to discover weapons on or about the person detained. A Paulding County Criminal Defense Lawyer can help defend your rights when violated by an unlawful search.
In O'Kelly v. State the Georgia Court of Appeals held that there is no advance publicity requirement in Georgia for a roadblock. Georgia law requires only that the roadblock be identified as a police checkpoint. In Burns v. State the court held that the requirement that supervisory personnel designate the place of the roadblock was facially met where the night shift supervisor on that night authorized roadblock even though another officer was supervisor of the entire shift. In Harden v. State the court concluded that in auxiliary roadblock assigned stop drivers attempting to avoid potential roadblock was within the requirements for a proper roadblock, even though locations not explicitly authorized by supervisory personnel.In the court's holding was premised on its finding that the general decision to implement the roadblock had been made by the supervisory personnel. In Michigan Department of State police v. Sitz the United States Supreme Court held that 4th amendment was not violated where all motorists were stopped in to check for signs of intoxication which were to be determined according to guidelines. In Gamble v. State 233 Ga. App. 653 1996 The Court held that where the driver could not find proof of insurance the officer is authorized to make an brief inquiry regarding the drivers and passengers destination and to request consent to search the vehicle. Where the initial detention or seizure of the roadblock is valid at a secondary detention or seizure does not require additional proof of reasonable and article suspicion. If evidence is seized from a road block Paulding County lawyers must look at the validity of the siezure. In McCray v. State Court of Appeals held the detention of the defendant at a secondary position while officers sought verification of his driver's license. At the initial roadblock stop the defendant produced a tattered license and was unable to furnish a vehicle registration. The court also upheld a subsequent search of the defendant's vehicle after a drug dog alerted officers to the presence of drugs in the defendant's car at that secondary stop. This court was satisfied that the roadblock was set up for a proper purpose, the defendants detention was appropriate and allowing the dog to walk around the car did not unduly prolong the detention. The independent of the bona fides of the roadblock, even at the measures to avoid a roadblock may give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity on the part of police authorities. Thus in Taylor v. State 249 Ga. App. 733 (2001), the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of defendant's motion expressed blood-alcohol evidence obtained after the evasive and erratic effort of the defendant to avoid a roadblock. Paulding County Criminal Defense Lawyer
In Delaware v. Krause the defendant had been stopped at random by a patrolman. The patrolman had not observed any traffic violation or suspicious activity on the part of the defendant, and made a stop only to check drivers license and registration. He also was not acting pursuant to any procedure pertaining to spot checks. During the stop the patrolman saw marijuana in plain view on the floor of the car. In holding that the marijuana had been properly suppressed, the court ruled that there must be a recent article and reasonable suspicion of a motorist is unlicensed, or that are not registered, or that are not otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law or driver may be stopped. In Brower v. Inyo County the court held that stop in a single motorist with the roadblock amounts to a seizure in 4th amendment terms. However this rule does not apply to roadblock were all vehicles are stopped for license check. Based upon its review of the United States Supreme Court's decision in city of Indianapolis v. Edmond 531 U.S. 32 (2000) and the Georgia Supreme Court decision in Lot Fontaine v. State 269 Ga. 251 (1998) Georgia Court of Appeals in Baker v. State declared that the constitutional validity of the roadblock is dependent upon the presence of the following features: the record reflect the decision to implement the checkpoint in question was made by supervisor or officer and not all in the field and that the supervision had a legitimate primary purpose. The phrase decision to implement include decision to have the roadblock and where and when to have it. All vehicles were stopped as opposed to random stops, the delay to motorists were minimal, roadblock identification was well identified as a police checkpoint, the screening officer's training and experience for sufficient to qualify him to make an initial determination as to which motorists would be given field test for intoxication. The court expressly rejected the implication in prior decisions that these criteria are simply guidelines to be applied in weighing the totality of the circumstances. Each of these factors is now a necessary prerequisite of constitutional proportions for a valid roadblock. If you were stopped by a police officer at an invalid roadblock contact a Paulding County criminal defense lawyer.