Time: Fri Jun 13 15:10:40 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26546; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:42:32 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 14:41:11 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Copswatch (fwd) Status: U <snip> > >This sounds like a great thing to have posted and linked. >I will send an email to the atty and see if he can do the page so we can just link >to it. > >If not do we have any web page vols that would like to take this on? > >Mark Greer >Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc. >MGreer@mapinc.org >http://www.mapinc.org > > >-------------Forwarded Message----------------- > > > >RE: Fwd: Copswatch > > >Dear Friends, > >If y'all haven't subscribed to "Copswatch" yet, please read this particular >segment. For those of you who don't already know, "Copswatch" is a weekly >posting from an attorney in CA who watches the show "Cops" then discusses the >legality of the police behavior. Valuable information for protection from >overzealous law enforcement is usually in these postings -- especially this >one which deals with needles and marijuana. Please forward this message to >anyone who should have it, and consider subscribing to Copswatch today. (I >think it's free -- just send a "subscribe" message to the Copswatch address >contained herein.) > >Take care, >Chuck Thomas >Marijuana Policy Project >Washington, D.C. >--------------------- >Forwarded message: >From: copswatch@bevcom.org >To: Copswatch@main.cwnet.com >Date: 97-06-11 04:46:16 EDT > > >This list digest contains the following message subjects: > > >_________________________________ >Copswatch Report, No. 23, June 7, 1997 >_________________________________ > >This week's TV show was filmed in Washington. > >Segment Two. 5:16 p.m. Man With A Gun. > >Facts and Commentary: A citizen has called the cops to report a man seen >carrying a gun. Deputy Zaro, adds that "she also said that she thought it >was part of some kinda drug deal but she didn't say what made her think >that." Deputy Zaro spots a man standing nearby a car described by the >citizen informer, and immediately says to the man: "come here . . . take >your hands out of your pockets." > >As soon as Deputy Zaro said "come here," a detention began because a >reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. A detention is only >lawful if it is based on a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved >in criminal activity. The detention here was lawful because it was based >on information by a citizen informer that the man had a gun, and citizen >informers are presumed reliable (i.e., cops can rely on their information >without taking steps to corroborate it). Because the report was of a man >with a gun it was reasonable, for officer safety concerns, to immediately >order the man to take his hands out of his jacket pockets. > >Deputy Zaro then begins a pat-search of the man's jacket pockets and canbe >seen squeezing the outside of the man's pockets without entering them. >This was lawful. However, as Deputy Zaro is reading the man his rights, he >begins searching *inside* the man's pockets. This was unlawful, because it >is only justified if the pat-search revealed a hard object that could be >used as a weapon. At the same time, another cop is seen pat-searching the >other side of the man's jacket and feels something in the right front >pocket. The cop says: "I can't tell what this is," following which he >reaches into the man's pocket and retrieves what appears to be a small gun. >The man immediately says that the object is really a lighter and, indeed, >the cops' examination proves that what appeared to be a gun was in fact a >lighter. > >As soon as the cops determined that the man simply had a lighter, the sole >justification for detaining him came to an end. The citizen informer was >clear that she merely had a hunch that the man may have been dealing drugs. >Therefore, I don't think the cops had a sufficient legal basis for >continuing to detain the man in order to investigate the flimsy and unsure >suspicion of drug dealing. > >The cops, however, continue to detain the man, and one cop is seen >searching inside the man's jacket pockets, wherein he finds two syringes. >In my opinion, this was an unlawful search premised on an unlawfully >prolonged detention. Also, the cop that found the syringes looks like he >did not detect them until he unlawfully reached inside the mans pockets.=20 >Had he felt them through the man's jacket during the pat-search, and was >able to detect that they were syringes, he would have been entitled to >reach inside the pocket and seize the syringes. In that situation the pat >search would have provided probable cause that the man was in possession >of syringes. But, that did not appear to be the case here. So, the syringes >were the product of an unlawful search and should be excluded from >evidence. > >At this point, of course, the cops are not going to end the encounter. >After finding the syringes they are convinced that the man must also be in >possession of drugs. (They also notice injection marks on the man's arms, >and what looks like nystagmus - a side-to-side flitting of the eyes, caused >by some drugs.) > >Now the cops are reaching inside the mans pants pockets and removing paper >objects and other things. They feel something in his crotch area and, after >unbuttoning the man's pants and reaching inside, they retrieve a golf ball >sized balloon of suspected contraband. Then we watch the most ridiculous >questioning session by the two cops; a cop version of Beavis and Butthead. >Finally, they arrest the man. > >As I said, in my opinion the encounter became unlawful once the cops >determined that the man did not have a gun. The evidence seized after that >point in the encounter was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and >should be excluded from court. > > >Segment Three. 8:34 p.m. Car Stop. > >Facts and Commentary: This segment shows the method by which tens of >thousands of marijuana-related arrests occur each year. > >Deputy McCurdy stops a Camero because it is missing a gas cap. (Presumably >this is a vehicle code violation in Florida, if not then the entire >encounter is unlawful.) > >Because crimes involving marijuana are victimless the police rely largely >on serendipity to catch casual smokers like the men in this segment. >Deputy McCurdy lawfully used a very minor vehicle code violation to justify >stopping the vehicle. When Deputy McCurdy learned that the driver has no >driver's license, the deputy was justified in prolonging the detention >until he could determine the exact status of the man's license in order to >write him a citation. > >Deputy McCurdy determines that the driver has a warrant and arrests him. At >that point, the deputy was legally permitted to search the driver incident >to his arrest. The search uncovered a pipe and a baggie with a small bud >of Cannabis. So, everything with the driver was lawful. > >Deputy McCurdy notices that the backseat passenger does not have his >seatbelt on and asks for the man's identification in order to write him a >citation. Another cop orders the man out of the car. So far this is all >lawful. However, upon getting the man out of the car, the other cop jumps >right into an illegal search reaching inside the man's pockets. The >search, however, turns up nothing illegal. Rather, a warrant check shows >that the man has an outstanding warrant and he is arrested on that. So, >other than the illegal search which was fruitless, the man in the back seat >was lawfully arrested. > >To underline the obvious, automobile passengers living in states with >seatbelt laws should keep their seatbelts on when pulled over by a cop in >order to avoid an outcome like that involving the back seat passenger in >this segment. Had this man had his seatbelt buckled, he likely would have >walked away from this encounter rather than being arrested on an >outstanding warrant. > >Finally, the front seat passenger is arrested after Deputy McCurdy sees a >plastic bag sticking out of his pocket. After arresting the man, Deputy >McCurdy performs a search incident to the arrest and finds that the baggie >contains a small amount of marijuana. > >The front seat passenger was unlawfully arrested and searched. Simply >seeing a plastic bag sticking out of someone's pocket is not sufficient, by >itself, to establish probable cause that the person is in possession of >contraband. Therefore, the arrest was not premised on probable cause and >the marijuana seized in the subsequent search should be thrown out of court >as "fruit of the poisonous tree" a legal doctrine that holds that cops >can't use their own unlawful action (in this case the arrest) as a stepping >stone to a search. > >In my practice, I *commonly* see people arrested for marijuana-related >crimes after their cars were stopped for such minor mechanical problems as: >loud muffler, cracked windshield, missing headlight, broken tail light, >dirty license plate, missing license plate light bulb, bald tires, etc. >Driving a car with such problems is equivalent to driving around with a >placard on your car inviting any police officer to pull you over at any >time. People interested in protecting their privacy, therefore, are well >advised to keep their vehicles in proper working order. > > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >The Copswatch Report features the commentary of Richard Glen Boire, Esq., >and is orchestrated, with love, by the Who's Watching Who division of >Spectral Mindustries (specmind@cwnet.com). It is technologically >facilitated by Bevcom Technologies. http://www.bevcom.org/copswatch.htm > > >To subscribe to the Copswatch Report please e-mail copswatch@bevcom.org >with the message "subscribe". To unsubscribe, please send e-mail to the >same address with the message "unsubscribe." >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > > > > > > > > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail