LOS ANGELES ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWYER
A stop and frisk is not quite a search.  Courts consider the intrusion to be less severe and therefore do not require probable cause before an officer can frisk someone.  Personally, I think the idea that a pat down is in any way more reasonable and less intrusive than other searches is a ridiculous notion.  The idea that an officer can subject citizens to such discomfort and humiliation without probable cause is ludicrous.  But I'm not on the Supreme Court.

In the 1968 US Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, Chief Justice Earl Warren attempted to take a serious bite out of crime.  Instead, he took a serious bit out of the Constitution of the United States.  In a shameful display of disregard for the Fourth Amendment, Warren held that law enforcement officers did not need probable cause, but rather merely reasonable suspicion, a lower standard in order to stop someone on foot and pat them down.  The Court reasoned that the lesser intrusion warranted a lower level of justification. 

Traffic stops are an extension of the Terry stop.  Officers can conduct an "investigatory detention" based on reasonable suspicion alone.  Reasonable suspicion does not mean that an officer may stop someone on just a whim, however.  Even an anonymous tip is insufficient.  The officer must be able to point to actual factors that indicate to the officer that criminal activity is afoot.  If the brief investigatory detention dispels suspicion, the encounter should end.  If the stop reveals more evidence, the officer might have probable cause to conduct a search or make an arrest.

In determining the scope of a Terry stop, the Court has assessed several different scenarios.  Flight from police, when in a high crime area does not rise to the level of probable cause for arrest or a full-blown search, but does give police reasonable suspicion to perform a Terry stop (see Illinois v. Wardlow).  Additionally, a Terry stop cannot unduly delay a suspect from going about his/her business.  A brief investigatory detention only requires reasonable suspicion, but a 90 minute detention requires probable cause (see United States v. Place).

A pat down must be just that: a pat down of the outside of a suspect's clothing.  In Terry, officers observed a bulge that they believed to be a weapon.  A quick pat down confirmed that the bulge was in fact a gun.  In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Court addressed a Terry stop that went too far.  Dickerson had a small quantity of crack cocaine in a jacket pocket.  A quick, open hand pat down of the outside of Dickerson's clothing could not have let the officer to believe that the small object was contraband.  In fact, the officer used his fingers to squeeze the object.  In doing so, the officer exceeded the scope of what was permissible when he only had reasonable suspicion.  To justify manipulating the object in Dickerson's pocket as he did, the officer would have needed probable cause.

UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  What Constitutes a Search?
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  Consent Searches
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  Search of Vehicles and Effects
UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE:  How to Suppress Evidence

If you, or someone you know, has been arrested or charged with a crime on the basis of an alleged consent search, you need a California Criminal Defense Attorney who can assert your rights by filing and arguing a motion to suppress the evidence against you.  Contact our office for a free consultation at (323) 803-4352.

IMPORTANT LINKS:
LA Sheriff's Inmate Locator 
Los Angeles Superior Court  
Los Angeles Police Department
Los Angeles Felony Bail Schedule
Los Angeles Misdemeanor Bail Schedule

Nicholas M. Loncar, Esq. 
Los Angeles Criminal Defense Attorney
t: 213-375-3775 | f: 213-375-3099
Mobile: 323-803-4352 
[email protected]
1200 Wilshire Blvd | Suite 406
Los Angeles, CA | 90017
www.iDefendLosAngeles.com

By Nicholas Loncar