bingorad

Here's the situation:

Police officer comes up to me when I'm walking in a parking lot. "Put your hands on the hood." I comply. Then he exits his car and this is what happens in detail:

i) Officer: "Empty all your pockets."
ii) ME : "Is there a reason for this?" (because I wasn't "doing" anything wrong, just walking in the corner of a parking lot).
iii) Officer: "Of course there's a reason, I see you here walking in the corner of a dark parking lot, what am I supposed to think?"
iv) Officer: "Empty all your pockets."
v) so I pull out my wallet, keys. then the officer points to my cargo pocket of my shorts and says "What's in there?"
vi) so i take out my tin of rollies and there's also a few empty baggies in there
vii) he takes the tin and opens it and finds the goods
iix) officer then searches me quite thoroughly incuding hat & shoes, waist, down my pants, etc.

NOW, here's my question: Was this considered a search? Might the evidence be seen as admissable simply for the reason that I "consented to it"? I mean I didn't consent to it, but I didn't say "NO" either. After he found the "incriminating evidence" he DID search me obviously, but that is NOT when he found the rollies & baggies. He didn't find anything when he physically searched me.

AnarchistBarbie

Wow. This would be a good one for Niteshift - I don't think I personally know the ins and outs of law enforcement well enough to do more than point out that you did actually consent - because you didn't say no.

__________________
Life has no dress code.

bingorad

..so i guess no one else has an opinion/comment on this?

Niteshift

""Of course there's a reason, I see you here walking in the corner of a dark parking lot, what am I supposed to think?"

It depends on your state laws and local ordinances. If you have a statute or ordinance similar to our loitering and prowling law, then he may have reasonable suspicion. I'd really have to be familiar with your local laws and how your courts have interpreted it to be certain.

"he takes the tin and opens it and finds the goods
officer then searches me quite thoroughly incuding hat & shoes, waist, down my pants, etc."

Once he found the evidence of the first violation, the rest is fair game.

"Was this considered a search?"

Yes. But again, it will depend on your local laws. This is what is called a "Terry Stop" (Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 (1968)). For it, the officer has to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion. What I do not know is things like lighting conditions, recent burglaries etc. which are factors that will help determine if the stop was reaonable or not.

"Might the evidence be seen as admissable simply for the reason that I "consented to it"? "

I doubt it.

"He didn't find anything when he physically searched me."

His direction to empty your pockets was the beginning of the search. Over the past few years, the courts have been allowing us to tell people to empty the pockets or ask them if there are any sharp objects etc. in the pockets before we touch. It's a legitimate safety concern.


On the surface, this sounds like the officer was playing fast and loose with the situation, but, as I said, he has more info about your local laws, your local courts interpretation and knowledge about the underlying circumstances than I do.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Niteshift

I'm sorry. Disregard the above reply. I remembered why I didn't answer this before........... you're in Canada. I have no clue if it was permissable or not under Canadian law.

I'll leave the answer up for Americans that might find the info of use.

ikari

From what i know about our laws (which is more than some, but not as much as a police officer obviously) the only way they can search you is if they have reasonable grounds to suspect you were up to something illegal.

Loitering is not reasonable grounds, but obviously smoking a joint is

Niteshift, i believe there was a lot of merit in what you said even if it was from the american law perspective.
In that, if there had been a lot of problems in the area you had been lately, then they would most likely search anybody who looks suspicious in that area.

If i were you i'd go have a look at our laws and find out for sure what the circumstances would be...

__________________
we barely remember who or what came before this precious moment,
we are choosing to be here right now. hold on, stay inside...