Illegal search or misunderstanding?

[bb99420]

Based out of Erie, PA

I bumped into someone's bumper at a light becuase my tires slipped(they are nearly bald). The cops were called and when they arrived, the one officer saw a baggie in my door. He did not "search" the car. How is that legal, how is that probable cause? I also had something hidden in my shoe, how does he have the right to take that as evidence or anything else. I was arrested and all of my stuff was left there until family got there. What he took (both items) are worth a lot of money.




Thanks

 

[quincy]

Based out of Erie, PA

I bumped into someone's bumper at a light becuase my tires slipped(they are nearly bald). The cops were called and when they arrived, the one officer saw a baggie in my door. He did not "search" the car. How is that legal, how is that probable cause? I also had something hidden in my shoe, how does he have the right to take that as evidence or anything else. I was arrested and all of my stuff was left there until family got there. What he took (both items) are worth a lot of money. ...

Did the accident occur in Erie, Pennsylvania?

Why were you arrested?

The police did not search your car but one police officer took a baggie from your car and your shoe? These are worth a lot of money?

Could you describe a bit better what happened, please? Thanks.

 

[bb99420]

I don't want to say exactly what was in the baggie, but lets say it's a brown powder. And green circles were in the bottle

 

[bb99420]

And they arrested me simply because they saw the bottle and then the baggie, without even knowing what they were. That's what I don't understand the most. How can I be placed under arrest when they dont even know what it is?

 

[Zigner]

And they arrested me simply because they saw the bottle and then the baggie, without even knowing what they were. That's what I don't understand the most. How can I be placed under arrest when they dont even know what it is?

Because they're not idiots

 

[quincy]

And they arrested me simply because they saw the bottle and then the baggie, without even knowing what they were. That's what I don't understand the most. How can I be placed under arrest when they dont even know what it is?

So, you were in a car accident because your tires are bald and you "bumped" into a car. The police came and confiscated a baggie in your door, your shoe (or whatever was in it) and a bottle with green circles in it.

Were you tested at the scene of the accident? How did the officer know something was hidden in your shoe?

What are you charged with? Possession of brown sugar and green life savers and O.J.'s Bruno Magli shoes?

 

[tranquility]

And they arrested me simply because they saw the bottle and then the baggie, without even knowing what they were. That's what I don't understand the most. How can I be placed under arrest when they dont even know what it is?

Would you have known?

 

[HighwayMan]

I don't want to say exactly what was in the baggie, but lets say it's a brown powder. And green circles were in the bottle

If you want meaningful information from this forum then stop talking in riddles.

Otherwise, go away and speak to your attorney about it - representing yourself in a drug case is foolish to say the least.

 

[FlyingRon]

Let's look at this without all the histrionics.

1. You were in an accident (your own fault by the way, not that it matters). Thus this is a consensual stop. The police are free to approach and question you.
2. You had what appeared to be drugs in plain sight. The officer doesn't need to know for certain that they are drugs. This is NOT an illegal search.
3. Presumably, at this point you were arrested (most likely because of probable cause that the stuff was drugs, or that you had committed an arrestable traffic violation) and they searched you and found more suspected drugs. This is also not an illegal search.

You need a lawyer. A lawyer can make a disapssionate view of the facts (officer's statements, etc...) and determine if indeed this falls within the realm of legal siezure. I'm not hopeful for you.

 

[tranquility]

2. You had what appeared to be drugs in plain sight. The officer doesn't need to know for certain that they are drugs. This is NOT an illegal search.

They don't have to know for certain, but it must be "immediately apparent". Top portion of a baggie? Maybe not. Enough to see some green leafy material inside? Sure.

In Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), for plain view seizure:

1. Officer has a lawful presence in the area. (Check)
2. Officer sees the item in plain view. (Check)
3. Officer must immediately recognize the item as evidence or contraband without making a further intrusion. (Probably, but not enough facts to be sure.)

In this case, the items seized from petitioner's home were discovered during a lawful search authorized by a valid warrant. When they were discovered, it was immediately apparent to the officer that they constituted incriminating evidence.

 

[FlyingRon]

3. Officer must immediately recognize the item as evidence or contraband without making a further intrusion. (Probably, but not enough facts to be sure.)

Agreed. If it was a opague paper bag, it possibly was not fair game to open it and look inside. If it was a transparent bag with some powdery substance that was suspected to be drugs, it pretty much does look like it could be evidence/contraband and siezed.