The Search & Seizure Show

Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

Search & Seizure Show | Volume VIII | July 09, 2024 Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

Search & Seizure Show | Volume VII | June 19, 2024 Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, welcome to another roadside chat. My name is Anthony Bandiero. I'm an attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold enforcement training. And let's get right into it. So this question came from an officer from New Jersey. And the hypothetical goes something like this patrol was notified of a suspicious person and vehicle, they found a male under the influence of heroin, located right outside the vehicle, a semi conscious female was under the influence of heroin in the passenger seat. So the mail tells the cops that there is heroin crack, and a handgun in the vehicle. So the cops then search the passing department, they find those things. So the mail wasn't lying, there was drugs and gun a gun in the vehicle, then the cops asked for consent to search the trunk. The male denies consent.So the question is, is can police search the trunk on the motor vehicle exception? And the answer is going to be most likely? Yes. Here's why. First, do you think under these facts, right, a judge would give you a warrant for the car for the trunk? And I think the answer is yes, there's multiple drugs found in the car. And the actually says, There was heroin folds in the in the car, which is indicative of selling and so forth, right trafficking, there's a gun in the car, again, indicative of trafficking.Dealers use weapons for self help, they can't call 911 When they get robbed, right. So they have to resort to their own self help. So it seems to me that he may be involved in in dealing, and where would more evidence be of that crime, it's certainly in the trunk, maybe even the engine compartment. Dealers are known to just keep a small supply in the passenger apartment. But the big stuff is, you know, in the trunk and an engine compartment, it could be in the airbox under the manifold cover in a fuse box, in a box and so forth. So that's really what it comes down to me. If the officers do feel confident that they have the facts and circumstances that would lead a neutral and detached judge to issue a warrant for that trunk, then it's searchable under the motor vehicle exemption.If the cop does not feel confident, and does not have any facts or circumstances about why he believes that there's more evidence in the truck, then don't search it. Right. But if you do, then that's the quintessential motor vehicle exception search. I hope this helps. Thanks for your questions help to move the ball forward. Please join me for my live webinars on Demand training and of course, the in person training that we're doing around the country. Until next time, stay safe

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training, giving you another roadside chat. Alright, so this question comes from an officer in Kansas, and the officer asked this. So the situation was several officers stopped out with young kids that were suspected of throwing rocks from an overpass onto a car. And the officers noticed that they had cell phones, and they asked for consent to search the cell phone for evidence of them, you know, throwing rocks and so forth, they reasonably believe that if they were up to no good, they would be recording it. So a,the kids were 1112 13, and 12. So four kids total, and a couple of my believe, offered their cell phones to be viewed and the videos looked at and so forth. So the officers got consent from the kids. They looked at the videos, they did not see anything illegal. They gave the phones back and the kids were released. Well, what happens later, mom calls, right, one of the kids mom's calls and says, You have no right to search my kids cell phone without my permission. My son cannot give you permission. That's my cell phone, I pay for it. And the officer asks, well, did my you know these officers mess up?And the answer is no.It is.It is legally possible for a juvenile to consent to search. So what are the requirements of consent to search? Well, it has to be free and voluntary. In other words, the person gave consent to search freely on his or her own will. And it was voluntary. In other words, there was nogun to the kit to the person's head, right. So that's free and voluntary. Also, the requirement is that the person has to have authority to give consent over the things searched.These factors are judged based on a totality of the circumstances, a totality of circumstances, the whole thing comes into all the facts come into play.And then finally, the prosecutor the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. That is how much proof you need to prove to the court that you had free voluntary consent. So free and voluntary consent.The person giving consent has the authority.And based off to the totality of circumstances, can the prosecutor prove by a preponderance of the evidence more likely than not that the consent was free, you know that those factors are met? Well, let's look at it here. Okay. So first of all, courts do not have an age cutoff. There are plenty of cases out there where juveniles are consenting to search.The juvenile has authority over the phone, the juvenile is a user of the phone, the mom can also give consent, but they do not need to track down mom, they can get consent from somebody else who can give it the officer who shared the story said that there was no threats. There was no you know, it was it was just very calm and cordial and asked the kids to kind of prove that there weren't anything by showing the videos. So there is no threats, there is no harassment.And this is there is no facts given to me at least, that would show that the cops cannot prove that the kids the kid gave free and voluntary consent. Mom's consent is not required.They can get it if they want, but it's not required. So based off of this question, we are good to go. This is a valid consent. And if the officers would have found evidence on the phone, not only would we be good, but the officer presents convinced sees the phone as evidence to be used at trial.There you go. Keep your questions coming. I can't answer all the questions, but ones that I believe other officers like know the answer, I will share them on this YouTube format. Until next time, stay safe

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero, here, Senior Legal instructor at Blue to Gold law enforcement training. And today's question is, what evidence can I use from a private search? Well, the short answer is all of it. And here is why a private search is when a person searches or ceases something and there's no government involvement. Now, the general rule is, is that if there is no government involvement, you can use any evidence that they obtained period in the story, even if what they did, would have been completely prohibited if you did it. So what does it mean for a private person to be, you know, to be converted into a government agent, we are looking for things like the officer encouraged the person to do it, they directed or ordered them to do it, or they participated in the in the search, right? When you have those things in play, you have just made that private person, a government agent, and that now everybody has to play by the fourth minute rules. But the other the reverse side of that coin is also true. If the private person is not involved with law enforcement, and they're not being encouraged, directed, ordered. And they're not, you know, in law enforcement officers not participating in it, you can use any evidence they bring you, even if it would have offended the Fourth Amendment. Let me give you a couple examples. Security personnel, detain somebody because they were counting cards, and it was against house rules, right. So they brought the person back to the casino security office, they then opened up this guy's backpack and found drugs. Now they're not going to arrest this person, they were just going to trespass them. So what we have is a detention by a private security officer, and those is going to trespass them. Now they call police that the officers showed up, saw the drugs, right, that was obtained from the backpack. And the question is, can the officer use those drugs? In a case? Can I use it as evidence and answers? Absolutely, yes, no problem. Because even if the officer may have not been able to do the exact same thing, if he or she was on scene, for example, trespassing, somebody would not allow you to go right into their backpack. But it didn't happen with police involvement. Right. So we have another case, where a FedEx employee was really on the hunt for drugs being concealed in FedEx shipping packages. And he apparently, maybe even violated some FedEx rules, by searching boxes and so forth that he thought was contraband. And, in fact, he made, he was behind eight cases for the DEA.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold Law Enforcement Training bring you another roadside chat. This question is is can you look inside a woman's purse, or a man's backpack during a pat down?The answer is maybe. So here's, here's how this works. So we know that pat downs are, you know, an overall minimally intrusive way to protect yourself from weapons and blunt objects during a Terry stop. And if you have reason to believe that the person is either armed or dangerous, you can pat the person down for weapons. As far aspurses and backpacks go, if you can also articulate that you believe that the weapon could be in there, then what the courts want to see is that you start from the outside and only go into the container, the backpack or purse, if you cannot effectively pat the item down from the outside. So literally, what I would like to see in your reports, if you are doing this on a purse, for example, is that, you know, you articulate that the purse is thick sided, it's not conducive to a pat down, therefore, you opened it up, and only did those things necessary to find a weapon, blunt object, knife, and so forth. You know, again, you're not looking for evidence. Now, if you see evidence, in plain view, it is going to come in, but the courts do want, especially when you're doing something a little bit non traditional as looking inside containers, they're gonna want to make sure that you're on the up and up, and not using this as a as a, as a ruse to get into people's, you know, backpacks, and so forth. So that's the rule you if they have access, and also that they have access to it, right. So typically, when people are detained, they,you know, either they can be handcuffed or not, but usually they still have, or will have access to those places. So if you stop somebody for potentially being involved in an armed robbery, and you pat that person down, and they're carrying a backpack, you know, most cops are probably going to pat down the backpack as well, because that's where the gun would be right? If they if you haveevidence that they actually use a firearm, while if you've Terry stop them, they probably have a firearm on them somewhere. And if it's not on there person, it's likely in that backpack. So start from the outside, if you can effectively do that, you unzip it, and just look for the gun, and then you secure the gun and you go from there. That's the rule on containers associated with pat downs. I hope this helps. Again, you gotta do me a favor, you got to subscribe. And like that gives me the feedback that I need. Also, if you want legal updates, go to my website, blue to gold calm and you'll see you know, sign up for legal updates. And don't forget the live training, right? This is just a small piece of it. I'm going to give you a small piece of go to bluetogold.com, look at a training calendar and see if there's a class that you can attend online or in person. You want to see the whole shebang right I do this I do three days of search and seizure training, which makes cops experts in the law. Until next time, stay safe.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training, giving you another roadside chat. Today's question is one that I get all the time around the country. And it's, it's important. So let's go through, can you get consent to search a home from a spouse, even if the non consenting spouse has left?Okay, so the answer is yes, you can, you can use that consent, even if the person who is non consenting, let's say, let's say the wife will allow you to search the home, but the husband is like, no way you can not search the house. And he tells you, you know, that, that, that my lack of consent is good for the next two years, right. And then he goes to the store, he goes to work, he gets arrested. And the question is, can we now go back to the wife and ask her for her consent, even though we know that her husband has already said no? And the answer is? Absolutely, yes.Here's why.When a spouse leaves the property, for a lawful reason, for example, they get arrested. And that arrest was not done to remove them from the you know, from the environment, but done for lawful reason, domestic warrants, whatever, or they go to the store to get a six pack of beer, they are taking the risk, that the person that they leave behind will betray their trust.All law enforcement officers need to conduct a consensual search on a house, apartment, whatever is valid consent from someone with a parent authority. Anda non consenting spouse or roommates is not present at the time of the search. That's what it is. That's the rule. This comes from a Supreme Court case called California vs. Fernandez. Now many officers are thinking about a case called Georgia versus Randolph, where the non consenting husband was on scene and says you cannot search my house, the wife said yes, husband said no, the police searched anyway. Well, we know the result of that case, you can't do it. But if the husband is going to leave his drugs, his illegal guns and whatever at the

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to go Law Enforcement Training. This week I'm in Independence, Missouri, doing advanced search and seizure. If you're interested in this training, and you want me to come to your agency, shoot me an email on blue to gold.com Alright. Today's question is, when is Miranda required during a detention? So first of all, this is a little bit of a pet peeve of mine, because when I go around the country, many officers tell me that Miranda is required when the person is not free to leave. They were taught this. But unfortunately, it's bad training.And oftentimes, it's the lawyers that are training them to say this, that is not the legal standard, being not free to leave, is a detention. But we know that during the tensions, Miranda is not required. For example, during a DUI investigation, how many times have you read Miranda, to a DUI suspect during fsts? Almost never, because it's a detention and you're you're in the investigative phase. But yet the person is not free to leave. Certainly, if the person turned around and started walking away, you would detain them and probably arrest them for obstruction and so forth. And in addressing for the product DUI as well. But my point is, is they are not free to leave. So but Miranda is not required. Instead, officers need to articulate that it's that Miranda is required, when there's actually three components, one arrest like custody, not free to leave arrest, like custody, number two eminence interrogation. So for example, if you arrest somebody, and put them back in a police car, and you're going to question them at the station, what Miranda is not required at this point, because you're not interrogating him, you're not asking him questions that are reasonably likely to elicit a incriminating response. You can wait for the Miranda until you get to the stage or you can read it on scene, and you will, there it's not going to expire that soon. And finally, the third requirement is known officer.This makes sense. Because if you have a suspect that is in jail, pre assignment of a lawyer, right, that's when the Sixth Amendment kicks in. But you have somebody in a holding cell a pre arraignment, the 48 hour holds whatever you know, your state does. And you insert an undercover agent into that jail cell and that personconfesses that is valid that can be used against them.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training. And today I'm bringing another roadside chat from Studio.Today's question is, what is a cat out of bag search? So this ties in with another video that I made about private searches. Just to remind you a private search is not a Fourth Amendment search. It does not have to be reasonable. We don't care if it would offend the Fourth Amendment. If you know if you did it, if the police are not involved in it, and they didn't encourage it. It's not a fourth research period, you can use the evidence. Now let's talk about this related issue, which is, what if somebody sees something right from a private area? Like say for example, they bring you a backpack from the from a roommates bedroom, right? And they say, look, there's drugs in here.There is a doctrine out there called cat out of the back search and allows officers to conduct the same private search that the private person did without offending the Fourth Amendment.So let's kind of dive a little dive into this and explain what's going on here. So let's walk through this. So imagine a roommate suspects that their that their fellow occupant is selling drugs. One day, they go into the occupants bedroom, snooped around and open up drawers and look in closets and look into a backpack. And lo and behold, they find two ounces of methamphetamine,shocked and pissed off, because their roommate is, you know, is they confirm what they are doing. They bring the backpack to you at the police station.The legal question is, what can you do with that backpack? And the answer is the exact same thing the private person did before they entered the police station. That means that if an officer unzipped the backpack, and looked inside and saw those two ounces of methamphetamine, that officer could seize that meth as plain view. And here's why the cat is out of the bag. In other words, the private person, the actual defendant in this case, has lost his reasonable expectation of privacy as to what is in the backpack? Think about him? Is it reasonable for a person to have this private search conducted by their roommate or talk about the defendants point of view, and their roommate found the drugs and and brings it to the inn brings it to the police station? And that roommate says, hey, look, I know what's in here. You know, there's, there's this substance that looks just like, you know, like narcotics is the way it's packaged. And maybe they have personal experience with it. But my point is, you know, there is probable cause that there's evidence in this bag. It's not reasonable anymore, that the defendant has privacy as to those contents. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. But the Supreme Court said in a case called Jacobson, the cat is out of the bag, we know what's in it. Therefore, the police can do the exact same search.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with political law enforcement training. Today's question is, can you run a drunk canine in a motel parking lot? The short answer is yes, you can. And here's why. A person that staying at a hotel does not usually have any reasonable expectation of privacy in the parking lot. Think about it, you go stay at the Hilton, the Motel Six, whatever, you certainly have a reasonable section of privacy in your hotel room. But the but the parking lot, why would you have no exclusive right of access. Other people are, you know, entering the parking lot. It's usually these are not gated. But even if they are gated, they're not just for you, you know, they're for anybody who has access to the hotel. So, generally speaking, there is no privacy interest there. Therefore, the dog is lawfully present if the dog is lawfully present, that is the definition of a free air sniff, a dog can be run around a vehicle, I would not touch the vehicle on purpose. That is another issue involving that may be a search in the Fourth Amendment. I have other videos that address that issue. But as long as the dog is lawfully present, there is no constitutional search occurring. Therefore, when the dog alerts to the presence of contraband, now you have probable cause that can allow you to either a go get a search warrant, or be it under the Fourth Amendment, you can search that car under the motor vehicle exception, even though there's not somebody present in the vehicle, as long as police have lawful access to the vehicle, plus probable cause, and the vehicle appears mobile that it can it does drive, it does move, even if you don't have the keys, that is a motor vehicle exception. And there you have it. So keep these questions coming. Also, please hit subscribe. Follow me on Facebook. Let's get these conversations going. Let's clear up all these confusions that cops have under the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. Until next time, stay safe

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, Senior Legal instructor at Blue to Gold law enforcement training. And today's legal question is, what is a cause of injury search? Before I dive into what that is, don't forget to hit subscribe, follow me on Facebook, it's gonna be a great resource for you to get information and share tactics and so forth, your fellow officers, alright, a cause of injury search is when officers arrive at a medical scene. And they search the person's belongings for things that can help explain while the why the person is in medical distress. And oftentimes, these cases are about discovering evidence in plain view. So this is an exception to the fourth member crime, right? So you arrive on scene, it's a call is a man down, let's say it's in their home, and fires their you know, medical is there, the ambulance there, and you walk into, you know, provide coverage and support for the situation. Maybe it's a drug den, and so forth. Maybe it's you've had calls there previously. So you want to make sure the other first responders are safe. And while you're in there, you see a backpack next to the to the person, let's say the person is apparently odd, and you open up the backpack, and you find a gun, you find, you know, a drug evidence, you find maybe some fraudulent credit cards, now we're going to have a fight in court in the defendants argument is, you should have never went into my backpack. And your response would most likely be I had a right to do it as the core cause of injury, I'm looking to help you. I'm looking for reason for the overdose. I'm looking for medical alert bracelets, maybe even you know Id because that can also help provide care for the person, maybe the their refreshes in the system, they've they've had medical care before, and there's past notes about allergies and so forth. That's really why you're doing this. Now, as far as the mental mindset goes, by the way, we don't really care what you're thinking personally inside. I mean, certainly, many cops are going to have a hunch at the least that they might find other evidence in plain view. But as long as you were objectively reasonable, we don't care about your mental mindset. Now. Once what does that cause of injury search end? It ends when the necessity for terminates, you know, so for example, if the person is not overdose, but is in diabetic shock, and now, medical tells you hey, look, we're good. Like we know what this person is what's going on with this person or they start becoming you know, they're revived, then it doesn't seem with those facts that I gave you that there is still a need to keep looking for a cause of injury. So that's what it ends. Now, one other note on this is what about the evidence? in plain view, many states have immunity laws for drugs in plain view? Well, certainly, if your state gives immunity to people who have overdosed, and that's not going to be used for evidence, but what about the gun? And what about the fraudulent credit cards? You know, certainly those things are not protected by most immunity laws. So those things would come in as plain view evidence. I hope this helps keep the questions coming. And until next time, stay safe. When it comesto legal training. We're the gold standard. Visit blue to gold.comor Call 888-579-7796 today to purchase the search and seizure Survival Guide, register for a class or learn how to bring our search and seizure training to your agency.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training, bring it to the roadside chat from the studio since travel restrictions are in place. Alright. Today's question is, is can officers search a locked container during a vehicle inventory search? And before I give you the answer, I just want to remind my viewers to please hit subscribe, please visit me on YouTube and Twitter and get connected with me because what my goal is, I want to make the largest law enforcement community for getting answers and sharing tactics, getting legal, you know, answers and so forth. That's my goal, because I want to train all law enforcement officers in this vital information. And I want to work to, I want to help us all work together to share best practices. Alright, let's dive right in. If you have a policy that allows you to go into law containers and the answers you can, so that's really the answer. Courts want you to conduct vehicle inventory searches, and they are searches I subconsciously anthony They're not really searches. We're not supposed to call them searches. They are searches. They're just inventory searches. And that searches for evidence. Anyway, as long as your policy says it, you know, that is the kind of that's the kind of thing that courts are looking for, because they courts want to either reduce or eliminate officer discretion when conducting a vehicle inventory search, because they do not want them to be a, you know, wholesale rummaging for evidence, they want them to be legit. They want to be in good faith. You know, why do you get to inventory search a car, to protect somebody's property, to protect your agency from false claims, and to also secure dangerous items. That's why these are not supposed to be, hey, let's get into that car through an inventory search type of mentality. So policies now coming in two flavors, written and Customs and Practice. Ideally, if you want to keep your agency out of suppression hearings, and so forth, your policy should allow you too, to inventory locked containers. If you have access to them with a key or the person gives you a combination and so forth. I do not recommend that you break open closed containers or lock containers during inventory search. Because if you do it, if you do not do it on all cars, but just doing uncertain cars, what the defense attorney is going to likely say is, Why are you breaking my client's property? You know, it just doesn't, it doesn't sound reasonable.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training. And I'm in Scotch Plains, New Jersey delivering a fantastic advanced search and seizure class to some great officers. And I want to give you take this opportunity, give you some advice. Okay? The advice is this. When it comes to pat downs, it's armed or dangerous, not armed and dangerous. And here's what I mean. In the seminal case of Terry versus Ohio, the US Supreme Court talked about, you know, Officer Martin McFadden with the Cleveland Police Department, you know, patrolling Euclid Avenue for something like 38 years on the job and most of them as a plainclothes officer. And he sees Terry and his friends going back and forth in front of stores and things that they're up to something about to commit an armed robbery. And he Pat's him down and finds two, revolvers Ontarian in a cohort. And the Supreme Court said that if the officer can articulate that the person is armed and dangerous, they can do the pat down will certainly McFadden had reasonable suspicion that Terry and his friends were on dangerous because there but the hold up the store. But I wish they didn't use that phrase. That phrase comes from Old Hollywood, you know, be on the lookout for a suspect who is considered armed and dangerous. But what they should have said, and it would have given a lot more guidance to hard working police officers out there that want to go home at night, is it's not armed and dangerous. It's armed or dangerous. We got to get out of our mind is armed and dangerous. Because here's what happens. Officers are sometimes not patting down people, because they consider them dangerous. But they have no articulation that they're also armed. That is not what courts look for. They routinely look for armed, are they armed? Do they have the bolts consistent with the weapon? Are they favoring one side, you know, on their waist area? You know, are they walking in with a certain gate? That seems like they have a concealed carry and so forth? Are they visibly armed, you can certainly disarm people during a lawful detention or probable cause traffic stop for your safety, even if they're lawfully carrying, if you believe that this would help your safety that is, that is easy for the courts. I mean, a person with a gun can instantly become dangerous.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to go Law Enforcement Training. I'm in Martin County, Florida teaching advanced search and seizure having a great time out here. And the question I got was, Can officers lie during a knock and talk? And the answer is, yes, certainly officers are not, you know, required to share all their inner secrets about an investigation with an occupant. So that's not a problem. You know, courts have upheld, you know, deception during investigations for centuries. But I want to transition to another related question. And that is, Can officers lie, to get into a home to, you know, see evidence and so forth. And the general rule for known officers, these are, you know, these are not undercover officers. These are known officers, that the documents know that they're dealing with the police. The general rule is that officers should not lie about their primary purpose about coming into the home. Let me give you some examples. And an infamous case, officers told the occupants that there was a bomb planted somewhere in the building, right? That's, that's they got a bomb threat, and they want to look for it. What the cops were really after was plain view evidence of drugs. Well, they get into the apartment to look for the bomb, they find no drug evidence, and we go from there. The court easily suppress that evidence, no rational person would say no to the police. After hearing that there's a bomb somewhere in the building. Let me give another example. Officers were investigating disability fraud. The occupant was suspected of being highly mobile, and he's lying about his disability and so forth. They wanted to catch them on camera inside his home moving around with no issues. They told him that he was the victim of identity theft. This was a lie, he there was no evidence of him being the victim of an ID theft. Based off this, though, they won't take a report, the occupant invites him in, and they secretly record him moving around and so forth and use that against him in his disability disability fraud case, that was suppressed, because the primary purpose was a lie, that we're not there for fraud. Compare that to these two cases. cops told the suspect that they were following up on a two year old burglary that he reported. Okay, so the he was the victim of the Burgh. But that was a lie. The case was closed, there was no leads, and so forth. What they were really after was child porn evidence. They want to see if there's something in plain view. So they told him this and they wanted to talk to him further inside the home. So the occupant of Vida men, they're acting like they're taking more information about stuff that was stolen, all the while they're looking around the home looking for the, you know, plain view evidence that was suppressed, the primary purpose was a lie, there was no investigation. But compare it to this case, officers were investigating a burglary. And the occupant was the target. They were hoping to get into the home to see if there was plain view evidence of the property stolen. Now, when they went to his house, they said, Look, we're rescuing a Burg. And he asked him I suspect and the cops lied and says, No, you're not. Okay. He says, Come on in. And while they're taking the report, and so forth, and asking him questions, they see plain view evidence that was upheld as constitutional, because the primary purpose was not a lie. They were there for the burglary. But the secondary purpose, of course, was also to see if they saw plain view evidence. So this is just about telling somebody why you're there. Remember, though, is if you do not, if you remain silent about why you're there, and you're like,

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with Blue to gold Law Enforcement Training. I'm in Scotch Plains New Jersey teaching advanced search and seizure. And I'm going to answer a question today that I know a lot of you have on your mind. Can you search a vehicles passenger for marijuana? And the answer is, probably, but I have to go into some, you know, legal reasoning here because the answer is really not that clear. In some regards, this video is probably going to be more than average, I try to keep my videos all under five minutes, this one is probably going to go a little longer. But let me dive right into it. Here's what the Supreme Court has told us about passengers. There's two key cases I want you to know about. Before we dive into a little more discussion about the marijuana issue. One, back in the 1940s, the US Supreme Court said that if you have probable cause for the vehicle, right, that there's something in a vehicle, it doesn't give you automatic right? To search passengers, you have to have a Nexus that just makes sense. If you pull over a vehicle, and let's say it's Uber, and you find drugs on the Uber driver, certainly that would not give you probable cause in and of itself to search some passenger who does not know that Uber driver. The other case, happened 1970s. And what happened there is the officer gave the driver a citation for speeding, and then did a search incident to arrest. Well, the logic here and I do hear cops, you know, saying this, and they're kind of taught this way is that a citation is in lieu of arrest you have you heard that before? Right? It's like, I'm not, I'm kind of like a rescue, but you're going to be free to go. That's an old school language from some court cases, quite frankly, I don't teach it because I see no value in it. If you have even if you have an arrestable offense, let's say a suspended license, and your state allows you to arrest somebody for a suspended license, but you're just going to cite and release them, you get none of the benefits of an arrest, you get no search, you have to be diligent in your time, and so forth. So there's no value in saying it's Aluma. Rest, from our perspective, from the law enforcement, or maybe academically, it's, it's, it's in lieu of arrest, let the prosecutors enjoy that doctrine, if it gives them anything, but for you, it gives you nothing new, they're having arrest or you don't, if you don't have an arrest, it's treated like a Terry stop, even though you're citing the person. All right, now let's move into the marijuana discussion. If you have probable cause, that a passenger has drugs on them, like marijuana, and you are not intending to arrest, that's where the problem comes in. When you do a search of somebody person, and it's not for weapons, that is arrest, like, in other words, if if you have a passenger probably cause that they have drugs in their pocket, you go right into the pocket and pull out the drugs. That type of action is arrest like meaning it needs to be supported by probable cause. And you probably technically arrested them, even though they may not go to jail that day. That is actually not a big deal. The fact that they don't go to jail, but still you have, you know, essentially did a search incident to arrest. That's the only exception. We do not have an exception at the Supreme Court level that says if you have probable cause that somebody has evidence on their person that in and of itself allows you to search the person, you know, for example, you have probable cause that somebody has drugs in their backpack and they're walking down the street. Do you have automatic authority to stop the person and search the backpack? Under some recognized exception of search one requirement?

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with Blue to gold Law Enforcement Training. I'm in Scotch Plains New Jersey teaching advanced search and seizure. And I'm going to answer a question today that I know a lot of you have on your mind. Can you search a vehicles passenger for marijuana? And the answer is, probably, but I have to go into some, you know, legal reasoning here because the answer is really not that clear. In some regards, this video is probably going to be more than average, I try to keep my videos all under five minutes, this one is probably going to go a little longer. But let me dive right into it. Here's what the Supreme Court has told us about passengers. There's two key cases I want you to know about. Before we dive into a little more discussion about the marijuana issue. One, back in the 1940s, the US Supreme Court said that if you have probable cause for the vehicle, right, that there's something in a vehicle, it doesn't give you automatic right? To search passengers, you have to have a Nexus that just makes sense. If you pull over a vehicle, and let's say it's Uber, and you find drugs on the Uber driver, certainly that would not give you probable cause in and of itself to search some passenger who does not know that Uber driver. The other case, happened 1970s. And what happened there is the officer gave the driver a citation for speeding, and then did a search incident to arrest. Well, the logic here and I do hear cops, you know, saying this, and they're kind of taught this way is that a citation is in lieu of arrest you have you heard that before? Right? It's like, I'm not, I'm kind of like a rescue, but you're going to be free to go. That's an old school language from some court cases, quite frankly, I don't teach it because I see no value in it. If you have even if you have an arrestable offense, let's say a suspended license, and your state allows you to arrest somebody for a suspended license, but you're just going to cite and release them, you get none of the benefits of an arrest, you get no search, you have to be diligent in your time, and so forth. So there's no value in saying it's Aluma. Rest, from our perspective, from the law enforcement, or maybe academically, it's, it's, it's in lieu of arrest, let the prosecutors enjoy that doctrine, if it gives them anything, but for you, it gives you nothing new, they're having arrest or you don't, if you don't have an arrest, it's treated like a Terry stop, even though you're citing the person. All right, now let's move into the marijuana discussion. If you have probable cause, that a passenger has drugs on them, like marijuana,...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero, here with blue to gold law enforcement training this week. I'm in Martin County, Florida. And the question I have for you is whether or not officers can go into the backyard when they're serving an arrest warrant and not violate curtilage? And the answer is, yes, officers can do it. And here's why. Now, first of all, the question comes up, because when I talk about curtilage, in my class, I remind the students that from the Supreme Court's perspective, the back yard is typically treated like the home itself. So if you're going to be there, you need a reason you need what I call crew, you need the person's consent, you need a recognized exception or a warrant. There's the crew. Now, here, the recognize exception is the arrest warrant. An arrest warrant gives the officers permission to invade somebody's privacy, in the same manner as if they had a search warrant. Really, an arrest warrant is two things. One, it provides judicial probable cause to arrest somebody, but it also gives the police officer authority to search for that person at their home under three conditions. One, that that do have a valid arrest warrant that this is their house or their domicile, it doesn't necessarily mean that the address you're serving, it has to be on the warrant. But you do have to if there's a any doubts about that, let's say for example, they moved, and you look at DMV records, and you talk to a neighbor, and you talk to their employer, and they're like, yeah, they put this address on their employment application, you're gonna want to explain to the court why you had probable cause that this is now their legal domicile where they live. And then finally, the third ingredient is there, you have reason to believe they are present at the time of execution. One thing I want to kind of guide you on though, is that because going into the backyard is in a sense, like going into the home itself, that third element should be there before you go into the backyard. So for example, you should have a reason to believe that they're presently home before you go into the backyard. The cars in the driveway, the neighbor says they saw them there you see them, and so forth. If you have those elements, you can go into the backyard to serve the arrest warrant for officer safety purposes and so forth in the same manner as if you had a search warrant, which does mean forced entry after following complying with knockin announce. I hope this helps keep the questions coming in. Until next time, stay safe.When it comes to legal training, we're the gold standard. Visit blue to gold comm or Call 888-579-7796 today to purchase the search and seizure Survival Guide, register for a class or learn how to bring our search and seizure training to your agency.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero, here with blue to gold law enforcement training, and just outside of Cleveland, Ohio. And today's question is, can you run the serial number of a firearm that you are holding during a traffic stop? And the answer is most likely, but there are some caveats I want to go over. So first of all, we do know that if you are lawfully seizing a gun, for example, during a pat-down during a traffic stop, even if some is lawfully concealed carry, and you want to seize that gun during the traffic stop for your safety. Well, that certainly is going to be upheld. That's pretty clear. And then when you have the firearm, normally the firearms serial number is in plain view, you can just look at it. And that's not going to be a search under the Fourth Amendment right to be right to see, that's plain view. But what happens when you are running the gun, and the gun itself has nothing to do with the traffic stop, you know, it's just a safety issue. For example, the traffic stop is for speeding feller to maintain lane and so forth. The next legal question that we have to address is, does the running the gun extend the traffic stop? Because if it does, it could be prohibited under Rodriguez. So let's go through if you're running the firearm, and the serial number is is offered along with the suspects or the driver's license information, so forth, and dispatches gives you all that at one time, that's not usually gonna be an issue because it didn't extend the stop. It's part of the other things that you did it did not measurably extend the stop. So that's that's the first issue benefit. But if it does extend itself, let's say for example, dispatch tells you, hey, look, NCIC has taken a while to get back on this gun. And everything else is, is completed on the traffic stop, and you just waiting, there is an argument that that unrelated investigation is extended stop. And if something is found as a result of that, it's the fruit of the poisonous tree. So keep that in mind, I think courts are going to bend over backwards to give you the tools you need to, to find stolen firearms and so forth. But just keep that in the back your mind at some, at some point it can become extended, it could extend the stop. The next issue is what if the if the serial number is hidden from plain view. So for example, if there's a Hogue grip on the grip, and that certain number is, is underneath those I know, some Rugers have their serial number plates there. And you have to actually remove a grip or you have to remove a firearm part, you know, part of the furniture of the firearm and so forth. That is not playing view, right, that is a search under the Fourth Amendment. And I recommend that if you're going to do that, and be that and be intrusive on the person's firearm, have some reason to give to the court why you believed that run the firearm was reasonable...