Questionable search

[Learningtolie]

What is the name of your state? Florida
My daughter was a passenger in a vehicle being driven by a friend. A second friend was in the back seat. They are all adults, early 20's. All work, driver works and goes to school. Daughter is a licensed x-ray tech, no prior record. The friends had some old traffic stuff, nothing pending, no wants or warrants. They stopped for cigarettes at a convenience store on the beach, about 10:00 pm. When the driver pulled into traffic, he forgot to turn his headlights on. This is a well lit main drag. He had driven several blocks before he was stopped. He produced his valid license and registration. Knowing J. like I do, he was probably a little rattled, but that's normal for him. The officer came back to the car and asked everyone to get out and produce identification, which they did. They had not been drinking at all (no odor of alcohol), they were not smoking weed (again, no odor or dialated pupils), they had not used drugs. The backseat passenger did have a suspended license, case pending in court. The officer had one back-up present. Told the kids to sit on the side of the road. So far all we have is a traffic violation, right? I'm having a little trouble with this, since I not only know these people, but I have researched their records...and have the police report. Why would he pull everyone out?
It gets better...the officer tells the driver he would like to "look around the car" and insinuates that he's going to arrest the passenger with the suspended license if he's not allowed. J. is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, he figures they're just going to shine the flashlight around. But no, they pull my daughter's purse out and search it (no permission needed, I guess) and voila! At the bottom of her purse is one old 2mg Xanax, that I gave her 2 months ago. She has a documented panic disorder and at that time was trying to get in to see her doctor (she was given a prescription for a similar medication). The officer calls her over, asks her if she knows what it is, where she got it and being the honest and respectful person I raised her to be, she answered honestly. She was promptly read her rights, cuffed and hauled off to jail for felony possession. She is now at risk of losing her job, if not her license to practice her trade.

Someone please tell me how this can be? Was this a legal search? What was the probable cause? Why would this guy want to ruin her? Oh, and when my husband talked to the officer, he told him he had a right to search her purse because they found a misdemeanor amount of pot in the trunk! This was an out and out lie...my daughter was already cuffed and in the cruiser when they opened the trunk. We have had to retain a high profile lawyer ($$$), because the public defenders get no respect in this district.What is the name of your state?

 

[AustinLawyer]

Let's assume the police version of events conforms with yours (which is admittedly at least one level of hearsay, not to mention the defendant's version).

The officer, legally speaking, had reasonable suspicion to detain your daughter's friend, based on the initial traffic violation. However, after the initial detention, if he were to testify that he would have merely written a ticket and then let the driver go, but instead he chose to detain them based on a hunch (which is what your rendition sounds like), it's possible that a judge would grant a motion to supress the evidence against your daughter. A high dollar lawyer will be well prepared for such supression hearings. The short version of the law (based on the U.S. Constitution, and therefore applicable in every state) is: the length of a detention must be narrowly tailored to the original reason for that detention. In lay person's terms: if they stopped you for a traffic violation, once they have had time to issue you the ticket for that violation, you should be free to go. If the officer were to testify that your daughter (and the others) were not free to leave after a long enough time for him to ticket the driver, with no additional reasons to keep them, he should have let them leave.

On a not-so-side-note, the unfortunate truth may turn out to be that the officer's testimony will not exactly comport with your daughter's rendition of the facts. I would only need to tweak one or perhaps two of the facts in your scenario to make it legal from beginning to end.

Having said that, if your daughter has no prior record, I think a good lawyer would be able to get her into some sort of diversion/get-it-off her record program.

AustinLawyer

 

[BelizeBreeze]

While I agree that the stop and subsequent detention MAY be seen as excessive, I did not read anything in the post to indicate that the detention was lengthy or out of character for a stop such as this.

Not turning on the lights, as well as other 'indicators' are behaviors seen in impaired drivers and it was well within the officer's purview to ascertain whether or not the occupants, as well as the driver, was intoxicated.

You may base your opinion on the lack of alcoholic 'odor', but the statutes are quite clear that 'impairment' need not necessarily result from alcohol and/or narcotics alone. I also question whether or not the driver gave permission to search and if so, then all contents of the vehicle, no matter to whom the item belonged, is fair game.

I would strongly suggest you get your daughter an attorney and work for probation.

 

[Learningtolie]

I have no doubt the officer's version will differ...he lied to my husband the night of the arrest. I used the word "odor" as an example and agree there might have been reason to suspect impairment, because the driver was suprised he had forgotten to turn on his headlights. However, no one was asked to submit to any type of sobriety test. And they were detained well beyond the reasonable length of time it would take to ticket the driver.
We've had to scrape together enough cash to retain an attorney who is very high profile (remember the Teri Schiavio case?). Diversion programs don't cut it with employers in the medical fields. Even though the charge is dismissed, they assume guilt. It's either nolle prosse or straight dismissal...she may still have a license to practice, but no employer will touch her.

Thanks to all for the responses.

 

[AustinLawyer]

Diversion programs don't cut it with employers in the medical fields. Even though the charge is dismissed, they assume guilt. It's either nolle prosse or straight dismissal...she may still have a license to practice, but no employer will touch her.

I hope your supposedly hotshot powerful lawyer explains the truth to you about diversion programs. Not Deferred Adjudication, which is a plea of no contest or guilty; I said "diversion". Diversion programs are dismissals, and can be expunged. Perhaps your lawyer can explain the expunction process to you as well. (Here's the short version: the arrest is wiped out, and no one can ever find out about it. Therefore, no guilt can be assumed.)

Then again, if you already know everything you need to know, and have a fancy lawyer to boot, I wonder why you're posting on this forum.

Good luck. (And try not to insult the intelligence of people who actually know what they're talking about when they give you the free advice you came here begging for.)

AustinLawyer

 

[shell007]

Then again, if you already know everything you need to know, and have a fancy lawyer to boot, I wonder why you're posting on this forum.

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[Learningtolie]

First of all, I wasn't begging for anything; rather asking for information about probable cause to search. I thought this was a forum for sharing information. Obviously I'm in the wrong place because you guys are condescending, cold and nasty. And your last posts were uncalled for.

I'm so out of here...ya'll just have your fun putting people down.