Car Searched for Handing Money to Someone in Public

[PegyIlean]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Posting on behalf a friend located in Costa Mesa, CA., and where the event took place.

She asked a friend who owed her money {$1OO.} to meet her at a shopping center where she was shopping. She finished her shopping & had to wait in her car about 1O mins. for his arrival. When he arrived he came and sat in her car & chatted for about 1O mins. During that time he handed her the money. They each left the parking lot heading in separate directions.

Approximately a block later she was pulled over by CMPD. After taking her documents and returning to the car, he asked her to step out of her vehicle and to the rear of the vehicle. In the meantime, another officer showed up. The policeman said he was going to search her car because he suspected he witnessed a drug transaction, which didn't occur.

When he searched her purse he found some pills {more than one - less than 1O} oxycotins-1O mg}, which she didn't have a prescription. She was arrested and charged with:
1135O{a} HS - Possession of a Controlled Substance;
4O6O BP - Possession of a Controlled Substance without a Prescription.

Her Public Defender told her the report said she gave her permission to search the vehicle, which she didn't, so they requested the tapes of her arrest. Last week at her preliminary hearing, the D.A. said they brought the wrong tape so her hearing was continued.

Her questions: Is handing money to someone in a public place, a valid probable cause to search a vehicle if she isn't on probation or parole? The tapes will show she didn't give her permission to search her car, is it possible her charges will be dismissed?

P.S. Her friend was also pulled over and his car searched, which they found nothing. They held him & his friend for 45 mins., taking his pulse believing he swallowed "the drugs". They also gave him a sobriety test "because they smelled alcohol", which he passed. Although his pulse remained the same, they arrested him for under the influence of a controlled substance. He isn't on probation or parole either.

Thanks very much for any assistance/advice you can provide.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[CdwJava]

She finished her shopping & had to wait in her car about 1O mins. for his arrival. When he arrived he came and sat in her car & chatted for about 1O mins. During that time he handed her the money. They each left the parking lot heading in separate directions.

To 95% of the general public - and 100% of the cops - this would look like a dope deal. So, I suspect the REASONABLE suspicion would be that this was a drug deal.

When he searched her purse he found some pills {more than one - less than 1O} oxycotins-1O mg}, which she didn't have a prescription. She was arrested and charged with:
1135O{a} HS - Possession of a Controlled Substance;
4O6O BP - Possession of a Controlled Substance without a Prescription.

Sounds appropriate.

Her Public Defender told her the report said she gave her permission to search the vehicle, which she didn't, so they requested the tapes of her arrest. Last week at her preliminary hearing, the D.A. said they brought the wrong tape so her hearing was continued.

They had tapes? That's rare. Most patrol vehicles in CA do not have cameras.

She better hope she did not give permission. Even if she did not, the observation could well be sufficient probable cause for a search. It will depend on what the officer can articulate as to cause.

Her questions: Is handing money to someone in a public place, a valid probable cause to search a vehicle if she isn't on probation or parole?

It can be, sure.

The tapes will show she didn't give her permission to search her car, is it possible her charges will be dismissed?

Anything is possible.

P.S. Her friend was also pulled over and his car searched, which they found nothing. They held him & his friend for 45 mins., taking his pulse believing he swallowed "the drugs". They also gave him a sobriety test "because they smelled alcohol", which he passed. Although his pulse remained the same, they arrested him for under the influence of a controlled substance. He isn't on probation or parole either.

If he exhibited the objective symptoms of being under the influence of a controlled substance, then the arrest was perfectly lawful. Did his chemical test come back positive for ANY controlled substance (illicit or prescribed)?

 

[justalayman]

I have now added one more reason why I can never give money to my wife. If the police saw me do it, they would suspect it was a drug deal and me and the wife would both end up in the pokey.

It is a sad day when, without any other justification, that a person handing another money is enough PC for an officer to search a citizens car.

I am not arguing there are times where that action and some associated justification is not enough but without reading more into the situation described, I just believe it was wrong. There obviously could have been more to this situation but at face value only, I believe the officers would have been wrong in their actions.

Just so you don't go yelling at me Carl, I strongly suspect they can articulate additional justification but at the situation presented here only, I'm with the OP.

I highly suspect these people were under actual surveillance for suspected drug activity.

 

[HighwayMan]

Just so you don't go yelling at me Carl, I strongly suspect they can articulate additional justification but at the situation presented here only, I'm with the OP.

FWIW, I agree. There would have to be more to it than what was described to establish PC for me.

Even something like known dealing in the area, especially from vehicles, which the OP might not necessarily be aware of. I don't know California well, so I can't make any judgments about Costa Mesa, or any part thereof.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay ... picture the scene ... a person driving through the lot then parking - I suspect not up front near the store, either.

Then, another person - likely after glancing around to see if anyone else is watching - gets IN to the car where they chat for a few moments, there is an exchange of money - and likely an additional hand off as well - and then they get out and go oppisite directions.

"She asked a friend who owed her money {$1OO.} to meet her at a shopping center where she was shopping. She finished her shopping & had to wait in her car about 1O mins. for his arrival. When he arrived he came and sat in her car & chatted for about 1O mins. During that time he handed her the money. They each left the parking lot heading in separate directions."

Sorry, but this SCREAMS dope deal to me! Two people just don't happen to meet in a parking lot, pass of $100, then go opposite directions. With my training and experience, I could articulate sufficient probable cause for this til the cows come home. In fact, dollars to donuts, someone in the lot observing this would probably also think the same thing - "dope deal." This is just so far outside the norm that it stands out.

The other curiosity is why were the cops set up to observe this exchange? What did they know beforehand? Were they tipped off to the transaction or at least A transaction going down? This was not a case where two officers were sipping coffee and got lucky, then they each followed one of the parties. They were there to watch for this. I suspect there were plain clothes officers observing, then the marked units were the chase cars. Someone gave up the deal, or, this is a location where such deals have gone down before and they were fishing.

Even if it truly was to pass off a $100 debt (and I do not believe for a moment that it was) it was still sufficient to give an experienced cop articulable reasonable suspicion for a detention, and likely probable cause for a search. It might take a little more work to make the search, but I have seen many searches upehld at trial raised on much less.

 

[HighwayMan]

I agree that it must have been a surveillance setup to catch this.

Now that I've gotten some sleep and re-read all of this I have to lean more towards the PC being there.

 

[justalayman]

CdwJava;2415908]Okay ... picture the scene ... a person driving through the lot then parking - I suspect not up front near the store, either.

she stated she had been shopping

Then, another person - likely after glancing around to see if anyone else is watching - gets IN to the car where they chat for a few moments, there is an exchange of money - and likely an additional hand off as well - and then they get out and go oppisite directions.

but none of that was included in the facts given

"She asked a friend who owed her money {$1OO.} to meet her at a shopping center where she was shopping. She finished her shopping & had to wait in her car about 1O mins. for his arrival. When he arrived he came and sat in her car & chatted for about 1O mins. During that time he handed her the money. They each left the parking lot heading in separate directions."

Sorry, but this SCREAMS dope deal to me!

wow, my dad better watch out because I have met him outside of a restaurant where he had gone to have breakfast and he gave me money after leaving, seriously true.

Two people just don't happen to meet in a parking lot, pass of $100, then go opposite directions.

not true. Of course, the drug situation is more common but it isn't always drugs.

With my training and experience, I could articulate sufficient probable cause for this til the cows come home. In fact, dollars to donuts, someone in the lot observing this would probably also think the same thing - "dope deal." This is just so far outside the norm that it stands out.

we all don't sit around home waiting for somebody to come get money they are owed. If they call me and I am shopping and they want to come get their money, by all means, come on down to where I am and get your money. It will look nearly exactly like the situation described.

The other curiosity is why were the cops set up to observe this exchange?

that's what I was talking about. I suspect there is much more than what was posted but taking it on what was posted and not inferring actions, it is innocent.

This was not a case where two officers were sipping coffee and got lucky, then they each followed one of the parties. They were there to watch for this. I suspect there were plain clothes officers observing, then the marked units were the chase cars. Someone gave up the deal, or, this is a location where such deals have gone down before and they were fishing.

I won't argue with that and if that was the case and those under suspicion are known drug dealers, then obviously it would be different.





Now, I am not saying the OP is innocent. I made my posts based only on what was presented. I know there is more to the story simply due to the fact an officer does not sit there for 10-20-30 minutes and watch a person without some reason. There are too many donuts to be eaten to waste time like that

just kidding Carl. I haven't picked on you for awhile and couldn't resist.

 

[Shadowbunny]

not true. Of course, the drug situation is more common but it isn't always drugs.

But doesn't your statement strengthen the position that there was PC? You state that the drug sitch would be the more common reason for the above scenario, which is echoing what Carl is saying.

(Now pardon me while I go back to lurking. And waiting for snarkage.)


edited for clarity

 

[justalayman]

But doesn't your statement strengthen the position that there was PC? You state that the drug sitch would be the more common reason for the above scenario, which is echoing what Carl is saying.

(Now pardon me while I go back to lurking. And waiting for snarkage.)


edited for clarity

I do not believe that provides PC but merely suspicion and suspicion without support is just that, suspicion. In itself, questionably actionable.


as is often said: the devil is in the details and without those, actually, even with those, we can only make a guess how a court will view any action. Carl, being experienced as he is, is generally a better source of how the courts will treat a situation but if I didn't poke him once in awhile, he might think I don't love him anymore.

 

[Shadowbunny]

I do not believe that provides PC but merely suspicion and suspicion without support is just that, suspicion. In itself, questionably actionable..

I guess that's where I'm confused. Let's say that 80% of the time drugs ARE involved in a scenario such as presented by the OP. (And, yes, the 80% is a number I pulled out of my nether-regions for illustration purposes only.) Is that not enough legally for PC? I promise I'm not being stubborn, I really am curious as to what qualifies as "support."

(So much for lurkage and snarkage. Dang this insatiable curiousity.)

 

[justalayman]

I guess that's where I'm confused. Let's say that 80% of the time drugs ARE involved in a scenario such as presented by the OP. (And, yes, the 80% is a number I pulled out of my nether-regions for illustration purposes only.) Is that not enough legally for PC? I promise I'm not being stubborn, I really am curious as to what qualifies as "support."

(So much for lurkage and snarkage. Dang this insatiable curiousity.)

Carl really is better at explaining this but...


let's say that 99% of the time when a person's parachute fails, they die. Does that mean that the remaining 1% should just be buried because almost everybody that happens to dies? Of course not. It means you need to investigate the situation but chances are the guy is dead.

Now, you need to look at a police action is similar terms. Was this a drug transaction? Quite possibly simply due to the fact that this type of situation often is. As Carl has stated, the courts have often accepted that as reasonable suspicion, which is enough to take some sort of action.

My position is; the guy isn't always dead and until you see enough evidence to honestly believe he is dead, anything else is just a hunch. Are hunches are considered actionable evidence?

I know Carl is going to say they are dependable for reasonable suspicion. Courts have ruled both ways. The devil is in the details and what the officer can articulate that a court will accept as reasonable will make it be ruled one way or the other.

So, do you bury the guy or check his pulse?

and research the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Each of those allow certain actions to be undertaken and each of them have their limitations.

 

[CdwJava]

Probable cause is evaluated upon the facts at the time of the incident. With the facts given, and my experience in police work, I could articulate probable cause that this was a hand to hand deal.

Now, if the two parties met at the front door to the store, hugged, chatted friendly as they walked to the car, etc., that would change things. But, as I see it, this whole thing smacks of a deal. For those who are not aware, the OP's description is PRECISELY how parking lot dope deals go down. To a "T". Our task force has made dozens of searches based on little more than the actions as articulated by the OP and all have been good.

Now, when you add to this scenario the fact (as presented by the OP) that BOTH parties were stopped by officers when they left, it only tells me that the officers were there because there was even MORE than what met the eye. They were there because this was a common place for such exchanges, or because they had specific intel that THIS deal was going down.

I have never personally known any such searches tossed on 4th Amendment grounds and I have known many dozens of these exchanges to go down and have, indeed, been in the chase car for these numerous times.

These are the circumstances that generate phone calls to the police with parties saying, "I just saw a drug deal go down in the parking lot ..." we hear those with some frequency even from people who are NOT cops.

When it is behavior outside the norm of human contact, and it is consistent with criminal activity, it can and often does give rise to probable cause. All because there CAN BE another explanation does not mean there is no probable cause for the search.

 

[HighwayMan]

All because there CAN BE another explanation does not mean there is no probable cause for the search.

That's a key point that alot of people do not understand. Probable cause does not equal "in fact committed". It's a lesser standard of proof. It's also less than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[HappyWanderer]

I know it wasn't California, but in Ohio this would not be probable cause. In "State v. Lee, 2009-Ohio-4536" an officer saw a guy buy a glass roses and some Choir Boy and decided to follow him. (The tube the rose comes in combined with the brass wool of the Choir Boy is often used to smoke crack according to the officer.)

The guy got into a car was driven to a gas station and then got out and went into the station. Soon, another car drove up and parked next to the car the guy came in. The guy gets out of the station and goes to the window of the car and the officer sees a "hand to hand exchange" take place. He arrests everyone and finds crack cocaine the guy moves to suppress. The appellate court found there was PC because of the COMBINATION of the purchase of known drug using supplies with the other facts of driving to a place, hand to hand exchange etc. However, it talked about some other cases.

In "State v. Nelson (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 506, 507-08" the court found that "an officer who merely sees furtive hand movements without seeing anything exchanged in a high crime area does not have probable cause to believe the participants have engaged in criminal behavior. "

In "State v. Crosby (1991),72 Ohio App.3d 148, 151" the court found the search unreasonable when with "nothing more to justify their search than the fact that two occupants of a car were engaged in some sort of conversation with an individual leaning against the vehicle.” the vehicle was searched.

Finally, in State v. Delagraza (2001), 144 Ohio App.3d 474, 476 the police saw a person flagging down passing motorists, stopping four. "The individual merely talked with the occupants of the first and fourth cars, but he leaned into the second and third cars and conducted what appeared to be some sort of hand transactions." The appeals court affirmed the trial court's suppression of the evidence.

I'm not going to claim those cases are the law in CA. But, they do indicate what another state's opinion on what is reasonable for an officer to believe under facts similar to here. Is Ohio so different from California on what is reasonable?

 

[Zigner]

I'm not going to claim those cases are the law in CA. But, they do indicate what another state's opinion on what is reasonable for an officer to believe under facts similar to here. Is Ohio so different from California on what is reasonable?

It doesn't matter. THIS thread is about California law.

Wander on down the road...