Cops giving me hard time; illegal search

[Scott1871]

What is the name of your state? PA

tonight i attended a footballl game at my highschool. just before the game, myself and two friends sat in a vacant tennis court adjacent from the field. during our time there, we were aproached by a teacher at the school coming to "check" on us to see what we were doing. He left and reported on his radio that were just sitting there. moments later, 4 cops came into the court from multiple entrances in the fence. they said that reports of an odd smell were coming from here and they needed to conduct a search. we were all asked to turn out our pockets while the officers searched our bags. they found nothing becuase we werent doing anything wrong.

was there enough evidence to justify a search?

were our rights violated in this incident?

do constitutional rights change on school grounds?

and should our parents have been contacted prior to this being done?


thanksWhat is the name of your state?

 

[tranquility]

Taking your words literally, no, there is probably not probable cause to search on the report of a funny smell. Who made the report and what his training and experience is and what the smell he reported is are important to this.

If the police did not have probable cause to search, your rights were violated.

While constitutional rights do not stop at the schoolhouse doors, the school has the right to reasonable restrictions. What that mean is complex and might make a good homework assignment.

Your parents do not need to have been contacted in this situation.

 

[justalayman]

Actually the OP never stated they refused or allowed the search. It sounds as if they allowed it at least because they turned out their pockets for the police.

If you allow a search, whether it be warrantless or without probable cause, it makes it legal.

The OP needs to clarify the situation before they can recieve a correct answer.

 

[tranquility]

While consent may be an issue, consent must be "freely and voluntarily" given. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and is based on the totality of the circumstances.

At least in the 9th circut, the government's burden to show voluntariness cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiesence to a claim of lawful authority. The scope of consent is also important. If the officer said something along the lines of "I'd like to search you, please turn out your pockets" and the OP did so, a case could be made for consent based on the totality of the circumstances. However, would that "consent" extend to the backpacks? I'd say no as the test is the objective reasonableness based upon all the surrounding circumstances. Specifically, what would a typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?

Implied consent is far more than not stopping the police. I'd say it is more likely additional facts would indicate probable cause than consent.

 

[justalayman]

Implied consent is far more than not stopping the police. I'd say it is more likely additional facts would indicate probable cause than consent.

In other words, the OP did not give enough info to make a determination of either refusal, aquiescence, allowance due to percieved rights of authority, allowance outright, rightful due to probable cause, or illegal.

The OP also did not give any info to make the determination of the search of the backpacks at all.

In other words, additional info is needed to make any true determination.

 

[tranquility]

No. If what the OP said happened, happened, we do have enough facts. Only if we start supposing other things do problems develop.

In few instances on the forum do we have all the facts. Most any answer will change when additional facts are added. In this case, there are enough facts to determine the legal situation.

If the OP consented, it changes.

If the OP or one of the others there are on parole, it changes.

If there is an injunction against kids sitting on the tennis courts, it changes.

If the OP didn't hear the police officer correctly, it changes.

If there was an odor of alcohol on the OP's breath, it changes.

If there was a murder on campus a minute ago by four kids matching the OP's description, it changes.

And, on and on. Which other facts should we make up?

That's one of the many differences between this forum and going to an attorney--the development of the facts. Sometimes it is clear there are many things missing. Here it is not clear. Things could very well have happened as the OP said they did. If we act differently, few questions can ever be answered in this format as the facts will rarely be developed adequately.

 

[justalayman]

No. If what the OP said happened, happened, we do have enough facts. Only if we start supposing other things do problems develop.

In few instances on the forum do we have all the facts. Most any answer will change when additional facts are added. In this case, there are enough facts to determine the legal situation.

I disagree with you on this situation. There is not enough info to answer the all of the OP's questions even without any of your scenarios considered.

was there enough evidence to justify a search?

exactly as posted, probably not. Tranquility's point of the reporters qualifications would make a difference and that is unknown to us.

were our rights violated in this incident?

as posted: impossible to determine.

The fact that the OP did not state that neither permission was granted or refused is critical to this point. Without it, it cannot be determined. WITH supposition, an answer could be guessed at but remember, we are speaking about only info given. Any call on this point is only a guess, not a true determination in the most liberal of definitions.

now your answer to this same question:

If the police did not have probable cause to search, your rights were violated

. Of course is correct but this does not answer the question I believe the OP was asking. They were looking for an answer which is impossible to determine without knowledge of permission or refusal. Without this, how can you come to any conclusion.

do constitutional rights change on school grounds?

No, but there are some situations where they do not apply as most people believe they do. Constitutional rights are waived in some situations and many people actually misunderstand what their rights actually are.

Now you see, I answered but added some info I felt was pertinent. My answer of "no" was predicated upon only the info given but felt it was important the additional info was given.

and should our parents have been contacted prior to this being done?

no

So how do you determine the OP's rights were violated solely upon the info given? Actually you didn't. You, not me, are the one who added supposition to the second question with "if they didn't have probable cause".

 

[CdwJava]

Well, if PA laws are the same as they are out here, I could cite local and state codes that would have been violated by the kids' presence on the tennis courts that would be sufficient for a detention and even an "arrest" resulting in citation.

Whether there was sufficient cause to search backpacks or not just is not apparent. Even if not, I cannot imagine an attorney taking the time to pursue a claim against the city or the school district in which there was no damage. The time and expense would not be worth the likely court fight.

So, Scott 1871, what do you want to do about this? Is this question entirely academic? or are you looking to engage an attorney? In either event, I think you can see that the "truth" can change depending on the facts. And I will venture to guess that YOUR "facts" will not be the same as those the police articulate.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

How can I argue more facts aren't needed? I can't and won't. But, even in a case with full discovery and the deposition of many witnesses, interrogatories and document requests and review of video and audio tapes and, and, and, and.....there are always more facts needed, especially when the argument will be a totality of the circumstances one--which it always is with the 4th amendment.

You are right, more facts are needed.

Of course, please refrain from answering any posts in the future if more facts are needed.

Info edit after reading CdwJava:
The question seemed academic. I don't see any damages and there is little that can be done beyond a complaint to the department.

 

[justalayman]

Of course, please refrain from answering any posts in the future if more facts are needed.

I miss those years of fencing in college.

I may have misunderstood your position, maybe not. I simply stated more facts were needed to make a determination of any kind regarding a rights violation due to the search.

The OP needs to clarify the situation before they can recieve a correct answer.

I read your replies to mean there was sufficient info to make the call.

No. If what the OP said happened, happened, we do have enough facts. Only if we start supposing other things do problems develop.

I could be wrong.


Anyway,

with the voice of calm, the man with the certified nose, the man of seemingly infinite wisdom, the man that defies the stereotypical definition of a cop (except for the coffe and doughnuts thing apparently), the man of minor TV fame and major respectability,

"CARL" has given us the most sensible answer to date.

 

[tranquility]

Carl's answer does not complete the circle. Since it is before the game we can probably bet curfew is not the problem. We might be able to assume the tennis courts were on school property (the teacher checking them out), but they may not be. What we have is four kids sitting on tennis courts before the game--talking. Beyond that is supposition.

While I'm quite sure a jerk cop could legally harrass them and maybe even arrest them, that would tend to show me the overcriminalization of society and a focus on the letter of the law and not the spirit as I'm sure there are hundreds of people who were on school grounds on their way to the football game. Maybe kids talking is now considered loitering--or whatever. While Carl didn't bother to tell us the law so we can debate the issue, most everyone can be arrested for something all day long. (Which goes to show why one should never talk to the police--even when they think they're not doing something illegal.)

But then we get to the backpacks don't we? We have no evidence the kids were arrested, so we can't do a search incident to arrest. Even if they were arrested, would the things being talked about by Carl give rise to a custodial arrest? If not, and a cite and release was appropriate, could a search be done on the backpacks?

Here, of course, there was no arrest. So, Carl, which of the local and state codes supposedly violated would give you probable cause to search the backpacks?

That cops often get away with the violation of a person's rights because damages are not great and the individual officer does not usually have to foot his own defense so there is most always a fight in court is a source of a major problem with law enforcement. There is little downside to little cheats and little lies. But then, they're COPS. They are PROTECTING us from dangerous criminals--like the hoodlums here who are sitting on the tennis court talking.

 

[tranquility]

Good point, let me rephrase:

It just goes to show you should never talk to the police unless you initiate the contact. Even then, be careful.



As to the "rant", remember the context. Four kids sitting on a tennis court, talking. Cop says he could bust them for a number of things. I don't doubt that he could, based on the overcriminalization of society. I then state this shows why you should never talk to the police. The reason being is that you never know what might provide evidence against you. When kids sitting on the ground talking is illegal, what illegal things are *you* guilty of right now? BS things, no doubt. But things nonetheless.

As to the argument being wasted because the OP's now gone, at least you're reading. Maybe you can step away from my wasted time with a little clearer understanding of the law.

 

[CdwJava]

Curt, Tranqulity's ire seems to be aimed at me all of a sudden because I claimed that the kids could likely be detained or arrested for a number of offenses.

While I do hate to disappoint, I do not intend to get into an argument on hypotheticals. Suffice it to say that there are a variety of state and local codes out here (don't know about PA) that limit access to school property when it is not in session and a detention would be easy to articulate. Cheesy, yes ... viable, maybe not ... sufficient to support a detention, yep.

I never spoke on the issue of the backpacks save to say that there was not sufficient information available to articulate good cause or not. I could guess how it went down ... but it's only guess work.

Tranq, if you want an argument on the subject, sorry - you ain't gonna get one.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

Carl, let me start by saying I have the utmost respect for you as a cop. If every officer were as you make out to be on the list, my fear of overweening (overweaning?) law enforcement would rightly be considered paranoid. Curt's reaction is more along the type I fear from law enforcement officers. Many problems develop from such a casual understanding of the law.

My real issue with what you said was in regards to the search. As *you* know, a search is not legal just because it is incident to arrest. That is a shorthand for the law. In reality and without getting too deep in the mire, a better way to say it would be incident to custodial arrest where there will be transportation of the suspect.

The reason this is important is that if you were to cite and release the kids on whatever charge you feel kids talking on a tennis court deserve, you would not be able to search the backpacks. (Absent normal, probable cause-type reasons.) I don't know how any of the types of things you could arrest for in this situation (absent pure speculation about shoulda, coulda, wouldas) would give rise to the search.

When you write, "Well, if PA laws are the same as they are out here, I could cite local and state codes that would have been violated by the kids' presence on the tennis courts that would be sufficient for a detention and even an "arrest" resulting in citation." I would take that to mean you are not going to transport. So, absent the probable cause we can't find unless we make things up, and absent the ability to search incident to arrest, how can we search the backpacks?

 

[CdwJava]

If I wanted to be creative, I would take them into custody so that I could cite and release them to their parents as provided for under the Welfare and Intstitutions Code. In that case, I WOULD be able to search the packs.

However, as I have done this a hundred times or more, usually all that is sufficient is asking if I can look in the packs. Can someone make an argument that consent was not freely given? Sure. Will it work? Who knows. It has never been an issue raised that I have heard of.

- Carl