Search Question

[BigDogatPlay]

The fact is NO ONE but God Himself could know whats in that pocket without verification.

Hence why, when we can articulate cause for a frisk and we encounter something on the pat down that feels like it could be a package of dope, based on our training and experience, we get to pull it out of the pocket and use our other senses, and some science in the form of a test kit, to verify it.

Then we make an arrest.



I frisked a lot of people in 20 years. I think I have a very good idea of what a baggie full of narcotics or weed feels like when it's inside someone's pocket.

[Rhythm of Life]

Hence why, when we can articulate cause for a frisk and we encounter something on the pat down that feels like it could be a package of dope, based on our training and experience, we get to pull it out of the pocket and use our other senses, and some science in the form of a test kit, to verify it.

Then we make an arrest.

I'm not saying you cannot plausibly identify an object. Somehow you guys are inferring that.

I was just commenting towards a poster that said he could know if it was dope. Meaning a definitive identification. I just stated you cannot definitively know what is in someones pocket without examination.

[Steveo8]

And this was what I was questioning. If the search is for officer safety then wouldn't anything that in not a weapon the be an end run around the 4th if the permission for the search was initially denied?

[biochembruin]

And this was what I was questioning. If the search is for officer safety then wouldn't anything that in not a weapon the be an end run around the 4th if the permission for the search was initially denied?

No. A plain view observation is not a search by definition, therefore the 4th amendment does not apply. If an officer is doing a pat down for weapons and discovers narcotics, courts have held that the officer observed the narcotics in plain "view" (feeling) subsequent to a legal pat down. It is also held that if an officer feels a weapon and in the process of removing the weapon, narcotics falls out, it can also be seized. There are several other fine points to pat down searches. The mere fact that the officer did a pat down after consent was refused, as opposed to simply diving into the pockets anyway, could be construed to demonstrate the officer's intention to respect the individual's 4th amendment rights.

[Steveo8]

Thanks for all the info. Although I think that some of it violates the 4th that is just my opinion and we all know about those. I find the plain "view" disturbing in that it really isn't in plain "view" as feeling something is not seeing something. The second example where a there is a weapon and something falls out while the weapon is being removed i would agree definitely falls in to plain "view". Again these are just my opinions and thank for the answers.

[BigDogatPlay]

I'm not saying you cannot plausibly identify an object. Somehow you guys are inferring that.

I was just commenting towards a poster that said he could know if it was dope. Meaning a definitive identification. I just stated you cannot definitively know what is in someones pocket without examination.

So then your point was based on the semantics of the post you responded to. Okay... fair enough. On that, you'd be correct.

Thanks for that. I really do appreciate it and I am not being snarky.

[biochembruin]

Thanks for all the info. Although I think that some of it violates the 4th that is just my opinion and we all know about those. I find the plain "view" disturbing in that it really isn't in plain "view" as feeling something is not seeing something. The second example where a there is a weapon and something falls out while the weapon is being removed i would agree definitely falls in to plain "view". Again these are just my opinions and thank for the answers.

An officer can use any of the five senses to constitute a plain view observation. In addition, an officer can use any of an number of sensory aids provided they are non-intrusive (for example, a flashlight or a search dog). Again, there are a number of fine points to the concept, but in a nutshell, the 4th Amendment is meant to protect an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. Courts have ruled that when items are legally observed in plain view, no search has taken place, and there is no expectation of privacy. It hinges on the legal definition of what a search actually is.

Also, the 4th Amendment does not protect against all searches, but only against searches conducted by the Government which are deemed unreasonable. There are a number of instances where a search could legally be completed without a warrant by a Government official, simply because courts have held them to be reasonable.

[Ron-Solo]

The fact is NO ONE but God Himself could know whats in that pocket without verification. We have 5 senses and to only use one to identify an object through different mediums of similar textures is just illogical.

You are right, there is no way to be 100% certain, but the courts have found these searches to be "Reasonable" based on training, experience, etc.

[Rhythm of Life]

You are right, there is no way to be 100% certain, but the courts have found these searches to be "Reasonable" based on training, experience, etc.

Once again I never said it wasn't plausible, I never said you couldn't infer, guess, assume etc. Never mentioned if it would work legally, I'm just stating logic.

What I said was the one poster who said he could know if it was dope in someones pocket is a liar. You cannot know, knowing means certainty. Having a really good assumption based off the guy being a tweaker and having meth mouth might put you to expect that baggy you felt in his pocket to be drugs but you don't know til you take it out.

Please read my posts again.

[Ron-Solo]

I'm done.

Frequency Clear, KMA 628.