WORLD Law Direct Forums
Home > WORLD Law Direct Forums > CRIMINAL LAW, ARRESTS, TRAFFIC TICKETS > Arrests, Searches, Seizures > When One Admits to Having Marijuana, A Search Is Legal When An Arrest Follows

When One Admits to Having Marijuana, A Search Is Legal When An Arrest Follows

This is a discussion on When One Admits to Having Marijuana, A Search Is Legal When An Arrest Follows within the Arrests, Searches, Seizures forum, part of the CRIMINAL LAW, ARRESTS, TRAFFIC TICKETS category; A search conducted without prior approval by a judge (in the form of a warrant) is unreasonable under the Fourth ...

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply  POST NEW QUESTION

 

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old Aug 13th, 2012, 10:44 AM   #1
Veteran Member
Country:  
Greghilllaw's Flag is: United States
 

Greghilllaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Torrance
Posts: 102

View Member's Facebook Profile
Default When One Admits to Having Marijuana, A Search Is Legal When An Arrest Follows

A search conducted without prior approval by a judge (in the form of a warrant) is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution with the exception of a few situations. Such exceptions arise quite frequently in day-to-day police investigations. Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S. 332, 338.

In the case of Travis Pope, arrested in El Dorado National Forest in Northern California, the “Search Incident To An Arrest” exception to the warrant requirement was tested on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (U.S. v. Travis Pope 2012 DJDAR 9839). In a clever opinion worth reading for the precedent it seems to set, the warrantless search by police was upheld as proper.

On the evening of August 16, 2008, Forest Law Enforcement Officer Ken Marcus was dispatched to a gathering of people in the El Dorado National Forest. Apparently, there was a report of loud music and the use of a public address system. There were many people partying, too.

Mr. Travis Pope was one of the people at the gathering. Mr. Pope approached Officer Marcus after Marcus arrested one of Pope’s friends. Officer Marcus allegedly noticed immediately that Pope was under the influence of marijuana. Consequently, Marcus asked Pope if he had smoked marijuana that evening. Pope admitted he had. Marcus then asked Pope if he had any marijuana on him. Pope said no.

Marcus then ordered Pope to empty his pockets. Pope then admitted that he did have marijuana on him and emptied his pockets on the hood of the police car. Pope was then cited for and charged with a violation of 21 U.S.C. 844 (a), federal misdemeanor possession of marijuana. He was not arrested.

Once in court, Pope’s attorney made a motion to suppress the evidence Pope produced from his pockets. The argument was that it was a warrantless search and therefore improper. There was no arrest, so it could not be a search incident to an arrest. Moreover, the officer’s safety was not at issue.

The magistrate judge hearing the motion denied it on the ground that the search was a valid search incident to an arrest, even though no arrest took place. Frustrated, Mr. Pope then pleaded guilty, but reserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.

Pope then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the U.S. District Court for the El Dorado area. Pope, however, lost again. The district court affirmed the magistrate’s ruling at the trial court, but on grounds that the search was supported by probable cause and incident to an arrest.

Pope did not give up. He appealed on up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There, Pope argued that because there was no arrest, the “search incident to an arrest” exception could not apply and there was really no probable cause to search him, or at least the officer conducting the search certainly did not articulate sufficient facts to establish probable cause.

The Court of Appeals seemed to agree with Pope’s arguments. However, it affirmed the two lower counts, reasoning that while indeed no arrest occurred, and thus the “incident to an arrest” exception did not apply, there really was no invasion of privacy issue. Therefore, the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment were not an issue. Cleverly, the Court of Appeals explained that this was so because the officer did not invade, i.e. stick his hand in Pope’s pant pocket. The officer only asked to look at the contents of the pocket, which Pope agreed to show.

The Court of Appeals noted that since Pope agreed to show the officer the contents of his pockets, Pope was not asserting an expectation of privacy in the contents. Therefore, it was not a search at all and no warrant was required. This reasoning meant the Fourth Amendment did not apply at all to Pope’s case.

This case should be a loud warning to all defense attorneys seeking to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, as it suggests that the fundamental requirement to having the Fourth Amendment apply at all is the assertion of an expectation of privacy. Following such an assertion, the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment then must be evaluated.

This article was written by Greg Hill. He has defended hundreds of drug cases all over Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino County. He also defends DUI’s, domestic violence matters and theft cases all over the state of California. He is an attorney in Torrance, California and a former Marine Officer. He is a U.S. Naval Academy graduate (B.S., 1987), Boston University graduate (M.B.A., 1994) and Loyola Law School graduate (J.D., 1998).
Greghilllaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13th, 2012, 12:07 PM   #2
BOR
Veteran Member
Country:  
BOR's Flag is: United States
 

BOR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 445

Default Re: When One Admits to Having Marijuana, A Search Is Legal When An Arrest Follows

Here is the decision if anyone is interested. The gravaman seems to be whether the requests to empty his pockets, as there were 2 of them, were searches. The 1st was not, but the 2nd was.

Oddly it does not mention Kentucky V. Rawlings (1980) were the SC ruled as long as PC exists to arrest, on officer may search a person before an arrest, but the arrest must be contemporaneous.

UNITED STATES v. POPE, No. 11?10311., July 17, 2012 - US 9th Circuit | FindLaw
BOR is offline   Reply With Quote

Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
Reply

Bookmark & Share

This thread has 1 reply and has been viewed 540 times

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Format Your Messages
Add Forum to Google Toolbar
Forum Jump

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arrested for smoking Marijuana and resisting arrest Criminalques Arrests, Searches, Seizures 7 May 12th, 2014 01:36 PM
Charged with Ingestion of Marijuana and Resisting Arrest Criminalques Deportation & Removal Issues 1 May 10th, 2014 04:31 AM
Unlawful search leads to drug arrest. Please help! heelstar Arrests, Searches, Seizures 7 Jan 27th, 2013 01:48 PM
Warrantless Search of FedEx Package Containing Marijuana Held Improper Greghill Arrests, Searches, Seizures 3 Dec 5th, 2011 06:51 PM
search and seizure: 2 undercover policemen ask me if I smoked marijuana Unregistered Other Criminal Law Matters 3 Mar 7th, 2007 11:33 AM


International Law Issues?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 PM.