Stopped and searched on street - was it legal?

[MeandMealone]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Houston, Texas

Due to an incident that occurred last evening I'm left wondering if my rights have been violated. Are we really free range for the police to search in this country? Do I have no right to privacy?

So to explain this properly I suppose I should explain what led to the stop. About 11:30p I was having trouble sleeping and I decided to go for a bike ride. I live in an urban neighborhood area with a mixed population (mostly well off but some poor). Although it was an odd hour for a bike ride (and some might say downright dangerous) I must point out that I had no ill intent and have never been arrested in my life.

At about 12:30a after riding down one particular street about 2 miles I decided to turn back and go home. Overall I was going rather slow and taking it easy just minding my own business and staying away from cars and the occasional street walker. I noticed a van coming up behind me and to get out of the way I pulled into a parking lot. To my surprise the van followed me, I swerved because I thought they were trying to mess with me or hit me with the vehicle. They swerved with me. I basically stopped and looked back to see what they wanted since I was pretty much cornered and two men jumped out of the van (an unmarked vehicle) one yelling at me to put my hands on the hood the other yelling at me to put my hands in the air and to throw my bike down. I could make out a police vest and I did as instructed, put the bike down and put my hands in the air (can't remember if they had pulled their gun or other weapon). They proceeded to frisk me, patting down my clothing to find whatever. While patting me down they were asking me "what are you doing here", I responded I was out for a bike ride. They asked where I lived, I told them. One of them reached into my left pocket and pulled out my keys, asked if they were my keys, I said "yes", he proceeded to ask "where is your car?" I responded that it was at my apt. The other cop reached into my right pocket and pulled out two pieces of mail I had pulled from my mailbox before leaving my apt complex. Both pieces of mail were financial statements on my auto loan. They asked "who's address is this", I told them that's where I live. Not believing my story they asked for ID, of course this is the one time I don't have it on me. They tell me it's OK to put my hands down and one gets back in the car with my mail to call in my address information to see if it was me.

The situation dragged on for about 20-30 minutes while they verified my information, questioned where I worked and my date of birth. After they were finally convinced I was of no harm they let me go, but I was never given a reason as to why I was stopped. They tried lecturing me on how it was a dangerous area to ride at night and that I didn't fit the profile to be out on the street this late. I'm 28 years old by the way, and I pay taxes to use the public streets???

Not that I want to file a complaint with the city but more because I want to know my rights for the future. Does this sound like a legal stop? Did they have the right to go past patting me down? I mean did they really have the right to take my keys, mail or other belongings out of my pockets or off my persons without my consent?

It just doesn't seem right and I don't feel I live in a free country as some might say...What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[dave33]

You are right, seems like a clear violation and just downright un-american. The problem is, is that more and more police stops and detention is being ruled proper. Alot depends on the specifics of your particular state law. In your state just the time at night may make it a legal stop. Also the only questions you are required to answer by law is your name and date of birth. The problem is who knows how they would have reacted if you decided to protect your rights. I would certainly suggest to file a formal complaint. This may serve to protect other people whom are victims of the police. I can't think of an instance where it would have been legal to pat you down. But you can rest assured if they are ever called to answer for there actions, they will they that you were acting in a threatning manner therefor they patted you down for a weapons check. Imagine what the police report would have read like if you actually had something illegal. Sounds like in your town the police are more of a threat than anyone else. Also if there is a next time, make no statements they have a very sneaky immoral way of turning an innocent statement into evidence of criminal activity. Contact friends and neighbors or anyone in the area and make them aware of the local police conduct. Do not blow this off, this is just an indication of there behavior do what you can to protect the innocent that are bothered by these men. goodluck.

 

[kroam82]

I say from the information you provided the cops may have been conducting a terry stop. Basically if someone looks suspicious and the depending on the officer's knowledge of crime trends in the area the terry stop was good. As you stated yourself it was an odd time to be riding a bike, that added with what could have appeared to the police as you trying to get away from them or hide could have heightened their suspicions. There could have been a trend of stolen cars or other crimes in the area during that time of night and they were conducting what is known as a terry stop to determine if any criminal activity was taking place. Once they determined you were who you say you where, which they will because criminals do lie, they let you go. I believe they were acting within the law. Just my perspective on this.

 

[justalayman]

=kroam82;2368882]I say from the information you provided the cops may have been conducting a terry stop. Basically if someone looks suspicious and the depending on the officer's knowledge of crime trends in the area the terry stop was good.

what? I don't think so. A terry pat or frisk is an allowed exterior only frisk to search for weapons once there was contact with the police. They do not make a terry "stop". Additionally, there has to be articulable justification for a terry frisk.

As you stated yourself it was an odd time to be riding a bike, that added with what could have appeared to the police as you trying to get away from them or hide could have heightened their suspicions.

It's not illegal to ride a bike in the middle of the night nor is it illegal to evade a vehicle that appears to be following you unless it has flashing colored lights on it.

There could have been a trend of stolen cars or other crimes in the area during that time of night and they were conducting what is known as a terry stop to determine if any criminal activity was taking place.

you really need to research what a terry pat is, what justifies a terry pat and why what you ar suggesting just doesn't make sense.

Once they determined you were who you say you where, which they will because criminals do lie, they let you go.

it makes no matter if he was believed or not. Once he gave his name, that is all he was legally compelled to provide. The police had no right to do what they did without at least reasonable suspicion there was a crime. This was not merely a stop and talk, this was a full on detention.

I believe they were acting within the law.

They could have been acting within the law IF they had a justification for the detention. If not, they were acting outside the law.

If the OP wants to take this further, he needs to investigate the justification for the stop since the officers did not provide it at the scene. If there was no justification, OP should make a complaint with the department and if he is really PO'd, speak with an attorney about his possible actions.

 

[CdwJava]

As we know, the justification for a detention is founded on articulable and reasonable suspicion. Here, we do not know if the officers had that or not. Riding a bicycle in a certain neighborhood after dark CAN be one factor in that articulation and determination of reasonableness, but by itself, no. But, without knowing what the officers were keying on we cannot say whether it was, or was NOT, a "good stop."

Was the OP riding without a bike light? Did he fit the description of someone possibly involved in recent break-ins? Was he wearing dark clothes? Was he slowing and looking into parked cars? Any or all of these things could contribute to the reasonableness.

Now, moving on to the search. A pat-down for weapons requires articulated probable cause to believe a person is armed. This can be articulated in much the same way as with the justification for a detention ... it was dark, he had bulky clothing, he made furtive movements under his shirt or jacket, a large bulge was observed int he clothing, etc. However, reaching IN to a pocket goes beyond the scope of Terry and requires added probable cause to believe there is contraband.

Had the police found evidence of a crime on you, there is a decent chance it could have been suppressed. However, that was not the case here. As it is you are asking whether they should have done this. The answer is, "Maybe." Even if they were playing fast and loose, the question becomes" "What do I do?"

No matter WHAT they are doing and how you are feeling about it, all you can really do is to articulate that you do not give consent to search and then cooperate with their orders ... do not fight, argue, or resist - that will NOT go well for you. You complain later or take court action if appropriate.

In this case, you might consider a personnel complaint, Let them articulate their suspicions to their boss. Either they had them or they didn't. If they were playing loose, then maybe their supervisor or lieutenant will rein them in. Their boss is not going to want to lose a potentially big case because of sloppy cops. So, you just might be doing the agency a favor by bringing it to their attention.

- Carl

 

[kroam82]

Layman, I have reviewed again what a terry pat is. I have taken this from the actual training text used by Homeland Security. I still believe it was a good stop. As stated below none of the activities need to be illegal, it is a totality of circumstances or actions that rises to the level of reasonable suspicion. Terry Pat was also addressed. Due to keys being a hard object which in fact be used as a weapon the officer was correct in removing them. The mail probably not. Looking forward to you input.

Terry Stop

The officer must be able to identify and articulate the facts that have caused the suspicion. Based on reasonable suspicion a LEO may temporarily stop and detain an individual for questioning. The courts have provided LEOs with factors that officers may use to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists. These individual factors alone will not raise reasonable suspicion but combined will raise to the level of reasonable suspicion. None of these activities need to be illegal if it where illegal it would be called probable cause. Some of these factors are Suspect's reputation, report of a recent crime, time of day, location, suspicious or unusual conduct, behavior of the individual upon seeing a LEO, running from the sight of police, suspect fits a specific profile of a known criminal type.


Terry Frisk

A "frisk" is a limited search for weapons, generally of the outer clothing, but also of those areas which may be within the suspect's immediate control. Terry V Ohio. Frisks are often done by LEOs in connection with stops. The objective of a frisk is to discover weapons that may be utilized by the detainee to assault the officer or others. The officer must have reasonable suspicion the individual is armed.

The scope should be the minimum necessary to discover weapons and should be initially confined to a pat down of the person's outer clothing and containers within their immediate control.

A frisk, by definition, is limited to seeking hard objects that could be dangerous to the LEO, and is not to be used for the purpose of discovering evidence, contraband or means of escape. The scope of the frisk is limited due to its nature of being a type of "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A frisk must have an articulable reason.

If during a frisk an officer feels a hard object that they reasonably believe to be a weapon the officer may then reach into that area of the suspect's clothing to retrieve it. For example if during a legal frisk the officer feels a flat hard object and reasonably believe it could be a plastic "credit card knife" the item may be removed and inspected. A weapon need not be illegal to be seized. In addition to a handgun a seized weapon could be anything that could be used as a weapon against the officer, anything that could stab, strike, strangle, etc.)

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Legal Division, Student Text.

 

[kroam82]

Layman, I have reviewed again what a terry pat is. I have taken this from the actual training text used by Homeland Security. I still believe it was a good stop. As stated below none of the activities need to be illegal, it is a totality of circumstances or actions that rises to the level of reasonable suspicion. Terry Pat was also addressed. Due to keys being a hard object which in fact be used as a weapon the officer was correct in removing them. The mail probably not. Looking forward to you input.

Terry Stop

The officer must be able to identify and articulate the facts that have caused the suspicion. Based on reasonable suspicion a LEO may temporarily stop and detain an individual for questioning. The courts have provided LEOs with factors that officers may use to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists. These individual factors alone will not raise reasonable suspicion but combined will raise to the level of reasonable suspicion. None of these activities need to be illegal if it where illegal it would be called probable cause. Some of these factors are Suspect's reputation, report of a recent crime, time of day, location, suspicious or unusual conduct, behavior of the individual upon seeing a LEO, running from the sight of police, suspect fits a specific profile of a known criminal type.


Terry Frisk

A "frisk" is a limited search for weapons, generally of the outer clothing, but also of those areas which may be within the suspect's immediate control. Terry V Ohio. Frisks are often done by LEOs in connection with stops. The objective of a frisk is to discover weapons that may be utilized by the detainee to assault the officer or others. The officer must have reasonable suspicion the individual is armed.

The scope should be the minimum necessary to discover weapons and should be initially confined to a pat down of the person's outer clothing and containers within their immediate control.

A frisk, by definition, is limited to seeking hard objects that could be dangerous to the LEO, and is not to be used for the purpose of discovering evidence, contraband or means of escape. The scope of the frisk is limited due to its nature of being a type of "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A frisk must have an articulable reason.

If during a frisk an officer feels a hard object that they reasonably believe to be a weapon the officer may then reach into that area of the suspect's clothing to retrieve it. For example if during a legal frisk the officer feels a flat hard object and reasonably believe it could be a plastic "credit card knife" the item may be removed and inspected. A weapon need not be illegal to be seized. In addition to a handgun a seized weapon could be anything that could be used as a weapon against the officer, anything that could stab, strike, strangle, etc.)

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Legal Division, Student Text.

 

[justalayman]

roam82;2369524]Layman, I have reviewed again what a terry pat is. I have taken this from the actual training text used by Homeland Security. I still believe it was a good stop

and I still believe you are wrong. You cannot simply grab somebody and search them. As Carl stated, this went beyond a terry frisk. This was an actual search of the person


.

Due to keys being a hard object which in fact be used as a weapon the officer was correct in removing them

maybe but that is not the point. The point is; was there a legal right to perform the SEARCH (it was far beyond a terry pat). Was there even a right to perform a terry frisk?

. The mail probably not

.probably? Definately is more like it.

Terry Stop

The officer must be able to identify and articulate the facts that have caused the suspicion. Based on reasonable suspicion a LEO may temporarily stop and detain an individual for questioning. The courts have provided LEOs with factors that officers may use to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists. These individual factors alone will not raise reasonable suspicion but combined will raise to the level of reasonable suspicion. None of these activities need to be illegal if it where illegal it would be called probable cause. Some of these factors are Suspect's reputation, report of a recent crime, time of day, location, suspicious or unusual conduct, behavior of the individual upon seeing a LEO, running from the sight of police, suspect fits a specific profile of a known criminal type.

and what would apply to the OP who, as far as we know, was totally unknown to the police, was not acting suspicious, had done nothing to cause notice other than riding a bike at night.

Terry Frisk

A "frisk" is a limited search for weapons, generally of the outer clothing, but also of those areas which may be within the suspect's immediate control. Terry V Ohio. Frisks are often done by LEOs in connection with stops. The objective of a frisk is to discover weapons that may be utilized by the detainee to assault the officer or others. The officer must have reasonable suspicion the individual is armed.

and while it is possible, we have read nothing that would provide reasonable suspicion.

The scope should be the minimum necessary to discover weapons and should be initially confined to a pat down of the person's outer clothing and containers within their immediate control.

Notice: outer clothing. They reached into pockets.

A frisk, by definition, is limited to seeking hard objects that could be dangerous to the LEO, and is not to be used for the purpose of discovering evidence, contraband or means of escape. The scope of the frisk is limited due to its nature of being a type of "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A frisk must have an articulable reason.

and again, we have been presented with nothing that provided that articulable reason. Not saying there wasn't something there in reality but based on what we have been provided, there is no reason.

If during a frisk an officer feels a hard object that they reasonably believe to be a weapon the officer may then reach into that area of the suspect's clothing to retrieve it. For example if during a legal frisk the officer feels a flat hard object and reasonably believe it could be a plastic "credit card knife" the item may be removed and inspected. A weapon need not be illegal to be seized. In addition to a handgun a seized weapon could be anything that could be used as a weapon against the officer, anything that could stab, strike, strangle, etc.

)Carl is best to address what can be considered to be a weapon but I really doubt a letter would be considered to be a weapon, although I think I saw Kwai Kang Chang use a piece of paper to kill a guy in the old Kung Fu show. (just kidding). Carl has stated that a crack pipe is distinguishable and as such, would not be retrievable during a terry frisk as a weapon. I would suggest the police are held to a fairly high standard of being able to determine what is and what isn't considered to be a weapon.

the problem (other than we do not have all the facts) based on the facts we have:

what right did the police have to detain, for 20-30 minutes?
what right did the police have to not only terry frisk but actually search?

what right did the police to have to do anything other than initiate a contact and inquire as to the OP's name? As posted, they had no right to detain, no right to search, questionable as to any right to even perform a terry pat.

I don't see anything (again, based on what has been presented) that the police had the right to do anything they did.

again, this is only based on what was presented. Your real world mileage may differ.

 

[CdwJava]

maybe but that is not the point.

I would have a VERY hard time convincing a court that keys were a weapon unless they had something attached to them which could be, AND was readily identifiable in a pat-down ... a pat-down that does NOT include the manipulation of the outer layer of clothing (i.e. no serious squeezing or pinching it).

While it is possible to justify everything the officers did, I think it is a reach. Since there is no evidence to suppress, this is more of a personnel issue than anything else at this point.

- Carl

 

[MeandMealone]

I want to thank everyone (even kroam82) for all the responses to this post. Since Thursday night (or Friday morning) when this incident originally occurred I have learned of some specific details of this particular area of town that I was not previously aware of. As it turns out, the area in which I was riding has been subject to 11 or 12 arson house fires since August, which of all were started between the hours of 11:30p-3:30a (all such houses being abandoned run down homes in a highly gentrified area). Residents of the area and supposeed "eye witnesses" to the crimes claim the suspect has been seen leaving the scenes on a bike. There are also two differing racial descriptions of the suspect of which I fit into one or maybe even passable as both of those descriptions (my actual race being irrelevant I will omit). Additionally, the street I was riding on is in the exact vicinity of where all of these fire have occurred and I believe I may have even passed one or two of the locations while riding that night.

To my knowledge I don't believe I was doing anything suspicious other than taking a very leisure stroll through an area which I consider to be extremely safe. I do realize that a sudden spike in crime will have police officers and residents on higher alert (or should I say paranoia) which feeds a certain level of vigilantism. Most likely police patrol has been heightened in this area which explains the unmarked vehicle, and I'm guessing some overzelous neighbor called in as having seen someone matching the very vague description of the suspected arsonist in the area where the fires are occurring.

Although I do not agree with it, I do believe the officers were acting within current state and federal laws in regards to the initial stop, given the recent events and possible suspicion. I am somewhat unclear about what sort of things they are able to do during the stop, such as duration of detainment, extent of questioning, and possible arrest solely based on suspicion or non-cooperation. As mentioned by dave33, I believe all I have to provide is my name and DOB, although as he also mentioned it probably would have been a much more painful situation had I insisted on withholding other information (such as why I was out, where I live, where my car was, why I was 5 miles from my home, where I work...)

As mentioned by Carl, I believe they were acting within the law by conducting a "pat down" as safety of the officer would probably come into play in a situation like this. Again, I don't really agree with the manner in which this all happened as I feel this was a very hostile stop in which I never once acted violent toward them or tried to run from them. To make matters worse, they were not easily identifiable as they were not in regular uniform and were driving in an unmarked vehicle. What would have happened if I had run thinking these were people trying to assault me? I was honestly in complete shock from the whole situation and didn't know what was going on...I initially thought they were a couple of drunks that thought it would be funny to run over a biker in the middle of the night. I guess this is our governments new form of "shock and awe". But what can you really do, this is the law of the land in the country we live in today.

As far as the actual search and removal of belongings goes, I'm convinced this was clearly a violation of my (remaining) rights. The keys were clearly identifiable by feel and sound and should not have been removed from my pocket. The statement that the keys "could" be used as a weapon is just a horrendous stretch. Perhaps they should have removed my shoelaces while they were at it, afterall I could probably use those to strangle an officer? My phone, I could have used that as a blunt object... The mail certainly should not have been removed from my pockets.

In any case, they now have my name and information and I'm probably under investigation as a suspect in these arsons at this time... Thank you big brother!!!

I don't know that it is worth my time to file a complaint with the dept. as I'm almost certain there would be absolute denial by the offers and the dept of what actually happened. To me, this is more of an eye-opening experience to the type of "Gestapo" society we live in. It's not like we have military personnel armed with assault rifles standing on the street corner reminding you of your limited right to privacy. At least in that form of society, you're not led to believe you actually have rights!

Basically if someone looks suspicious and the depending on the officer's knowledge of crime trends in the area the terry stop was good. As you stated yourself it was an odd time to be riding a bike, that added with what could have appeared to the police as you trying to get away from them or hide could have heightened their suspicions.

I don't dispute that they had the right to stop me, it's more the extent to which they went when searching my belongings. As far as evading them, I hardly think that riding a bike into a washateria parking lot at 5-10mph to avoid a suspicious unmarked vehicle would be considered "evading". If I had been paying closer attention as I should have been at that hour, I wouldn't have let them stop me in that spot with no witnesses...my point being I was going too slow...

Layman, I have reviewed again what a terry pat is. I have taken this from the actual training text used by Homeland Security. I still believe it was a good stop. As stated below none of the activities need to be illegal, it is a totality of circumstances or actions that rises to the level of reasonable suspicion. Terry Pat was also addressed. Due to keys being a hard object which in fact be used as a weapon the officer was correct in removing them. The mail probably not. Looking forward to you input.

Terry Stop

The officer must be able to identify and articulate the facts that have caused the suspicion. Based on reasonable suspicion a LEO may temporarily stop and detain an individual for questioning. The courts have provided LEOs with factors that officers may use to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists. These individual factors alone will not raise reasonable suspicion but combined will raise to the level of reasonable suspicion. None of these activities need to be illegal if it where illegal it would be called probable cause. Some of these factors are Suspect's reputation, report of a recent crime, time of day, location, suspicious or unusual conduct, behavior of the individual upon seeing a LEO, running from the sight of police, suspect fits a specific profile of a known criminal type.


Terry Frisk

A "frisk" is a limited search for weapons, generally of the outer clothing, but also of those areas which may be within the suspect's immediate control. Terry V Ohio. Frisks are often done by LEOs in connection with stops. The objective of a frisk is to discover weapons that may be utilized by the detainee to assault the officer or others. The officer must have reasonable suspicion the individual is armed.

The scope should be the minimum necessary to discover weapons and should be initially confined to a pat down of the person's outer clothing and containers within their immediate control.

A frisk, by definition, is limited to seeking hard objects that could be dangerous to the LEO, and is not to be used for the purpose of discovering evidence, contraband or means of escape. The scope of the frisk is limited due to its nature of being a type of "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A frisk must have an articulable reason.

If during a frisk an officer feels a hard object that they reasonably believe to be a weapon the officer may then reach into that area of the suspect's clothing to retrieve it. For example if during a legal frisk the officer feels a flat hard object and reasonably believe it could be a plastic "credit card knife" the item may be removed and inspected. A weapon need not be illegal to be seized. In addition to a handgun a seized weapon could be anything that could be used as a weapon against the officer, anything that could stab, strike, strangle, etc.)

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Legal Division, Student Text.

Again, you are stretching definitions. In your "land of MacGyver", every hard object "could" be used as a weapon. From your own definition, "If during a frisk an officer feels a hard object that they reasonably believe to be a weapon the officer may then reach into that area of the suspect's clothing to retrieve it". The keys were easily identifiable and you would NOT "reasonably believe" them to be a weapon, "REASONABLE" being the key word!