STOP AND FRISK

[Music] I'm Charles Crumbley chief of police Manhattan Beach today we are going to continue our discussion of the law of stop and frisk frequently a part of this procedure is a pat down or Frisk of the detained person this pat down is important in securing the officer safety however this type of search does raise several important legal issues police officer city of wer I'm detective T Sergeant shelers what what do you want we have a warrant to search your premises here search for what we'll explain that to you explain you can read law enforcement Personnel conduct many kinds of searches in the course of their duties one of the most important and most limited types of searches is the pat down or Frisk during a Detention of the suspect in the field the courts have rued that a pat down or Frisk is a search under the Fourth Amendment it is a limited type of search which is Justified only by the need to assure the officer's safety in view of this there are important precond conditions that must be met before an officer can engage in a pat down or Frisk of a suspect the first of these is that there must be probable cause to detain the suspect however the presence of probable cause to detain does not give Rise by itself to authority to conduct a pat down search such a search is only permitted in certain types of detention situations the the police officer must be able to point to specific facts from which he can reasonably infer that the suspect may be armed and dangerous courts will judge the officer's conduct by the following objective standard would the facts available to the officer at the time of the pat down search warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the officer's safety or the safety of others was in danger in in other words the reasonableness of the officer's conduct will be examined this individual resembles in some ways a burglary suspect the pat down undertaken reveals a soft object which was subsequently removed the court of appeal considering similar facts suppressed the marijuana that was discovered the court found that these facts did not warrant a reasonable belief that the suspect was armed or dangerous there was no evidence that the suspect sought was believed to be armed the detention took place during the day and two officers were detaining one person who had not made any threatening gesture therefore since there was no constitutionally adequate justification for the pat down the evidence obtained was held to be inadmissible the key factor is the reasonableness of the assumption that the suspect might be armed if officers have knowledge of a recent armed robbery and observed a person who roughly resembles the offender they may reasonably assume that this suspect might be armed thus the crime under investigation may be a critical factor in the justification ation of the pat down or Frisk clearly the authority of the officer to conduct the pat down or Frisk is quite limited it involves only steps necessary to assure the safety of the officer the officer is only authorized to take those steps which will remove the possibility of physical Danger from a weapon the exact nature of the steps permitted will vary with the situation confronting the detaining officer now suppose officers observe this person who roughly resembles a suspect in an assault with a deadly weapon report the type of weapon used is unknown to the officers clearly he may be detained and given a pat down incident to the detention note the Frisk permitted in this case consists of a pat down of the outer surfaces of the suspect's clothing the officer feels something upon removing it it is found to be a lid of marijuana this evidence will probably be suppressed here the officer went beyond the scope of the search permitted incident to a temporary detention he did so without constitutional justification the object felt could not possibly be a common type of weapon so such as a gun or a knife nor is there evidence here that it was some other type of weapon that would pose a danger to the officer therefore no constitutionally adequate reason existed here for the officer to make a more intensive search of the person by taking the object out of the suspect's pocket in some circumstances there may be a frisk or limited search for weapons of the area immediately surrounding the suspect here the traffic violator supplies the probable cause for the stop the court of appeal has indicated that there may be a limited Frisk of a vehicle incident to a lawful detention here again the purpose of the limited search is to ensure that there is no weapon that may be used against the officer in this case the danger is that the weapon may be used when the suspect returns to his vehicle here the Frisk is limited to the area in which the officer believes based on his observation of the suspect that there may be a weapon an unusual case recently considered by the court of appeal is similar to this situation on the previous day an armed robbery occurred a van of similar description was believed to have been used by three males in the robbery the court of appeal found the conduct of the officers to be constitutionally proper the court reasoned that the officers had probable cause to detain the two men in the van due to the robbery report they properly ordered them out at gunpoint due to the gravity of the fence under investigation and due to the high probability of harm if these persons were the ones who had committed the offense under investigation the officers were justified in looking into the van to make sure the third suspect was not present since the officers were justified in opening the door what they then saw in plain sight was properly seizable as evid EV these facts are extreme however they illustrate that the steps that may be taken to ensure an officer's safety during a detention vary with the nature of the danger presented with these principles in mind let's review a recent decision by the California Supreme Court this case considered the issues involved in the Detention of a suspect on facts short of probable cause to restr we have a 10851 suspect working the area of Avenue G these officers have roll call information concerning a Grand Theft Auto suspect they are given a general description is there sufficient probable cause to detain no let's look at the facts upon which the officer has acted first a general description second the suspect's obvious apprehension upon seeing the patrol unit third the movement of the suspect's hand to his pocket there are still not enough facts here to constitutionally justify a detention the heny test is not met here because of the vagueness of the description that has been given to the officers and the equivocal nature of the suspect's conduct in short there is an insufficient connection between this suspect and criminal activity more is required to meet the heny test he's described as a white male 25 years 5' 10 if the suspect fit a more specific description a court might well uphold the validity of the initial detention or if the activity of this suspect was obviously more suspicious there might be probable cause to detain the important thing to remember is the critical nature of the initial detention A detention here based solely on a vague General description and equivocal conduct on the part of the suspect would most likely be found to have been made without probable cause to detain thus even if the suspect is found to subsequently have been the perpetrator of the auto thefts in question the invalid detention May well result in the suppression of important evidence secured as the result of that detention now let's assume that the officers did have enough information to make a proper detention for example a more specific description that roughly matches that of the suspect and the suspect obviously attempting to hide when he observes the police unit what would happen after the initial detention what is the basis for this Frisk or pat down search in view of the fact that this activity is considered to be a search under the fourth amendment is it permissible probably not at the point of the initial detention remember the only justification for the pat down or Frisk incident to a lawful detention is to secure the safety of the officer during the investigative detention itself here the Grand Theft Auto report did not indicate that the suspect was armed or dangerous the detention is taking place during the daytime and the suspect has not acted in a threatening manner toward the officers the Frisk or pat down at the outset of the detention would most likely be found if the facts are changed slightly a Frisk may be warranted for example a threatening motion by the suspect or only one officer present at night in an area that is not well lighted [Applause] what are you doing up by the door there that's far enough right there just looking just looking for what just taking a look inside the building turn around put your hands up against the wall let's assume that there were sufficient grounds for both the initial detention and for a pat down search incident to that detention if any weapons are present there is no indication here that the object retrieved a lid of mar Iana felt like a weapon during the pat down of the suspect's clothing the officers here exceeded the constitutionally permissible scope of the pat down or Frisk that was permitted the California Supreme Court has ruled expressly on this point thus officers can only go beyond a pat down or Frisk when they can point to specific facts which would justify a reasonable belief that the object felt from the outside of the clothing was a weapon the court has stated that feeling a soft object in a suspect's pocket during a pat down absent unusual circumstances does not warrant an officer's intrusion into a suspect's pocket to retrieve the object a related issue here is this situation the officers felt a hard object that appeared to be a weapon they were thus justified in removing it from the suspect's pocket the object is found to be a container can the officers open the container and examine it once the object is removed and is found not to be a weapon a further examination of the contents will be a search without more this would be a search without constitutional justification remember the temporary detention is often the critical point in a criminal prosecution each officer will increase his Effectiveness if he is aware of the following points in a detention situation probable cause to detain is needed before a person may be stopped probable cause to detain exists if the following elements are met a an unusual activity is or has taken place B the suspect is connected with that activity and C there's some suggestion that the activity is related to Crime however a pat down or Frisk cannot be conducted with every detention in order to conduct a pat down or Frisk there must be probable cause to detain and the officer must be able to point to specific facts from which he can reasonably infer that the suspect may be armed generally a pat down or Frisk is limited to the outer surfaces of the ects clothing in order to conduct a more intensive search officers once again must be able to point to specific facts which would indicate the presence of a weapon if an object thought to be a weapon is found to be a container it can be examined further only if there is some other justification besides that for the pat down or Frisk this could be consent or probable cause to arrest [Music] w [Music] oh [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Music] a