• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

"Reasonable Suspicion" standard for nonconsentual searches

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

415erinexile

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
If I may post 2 divergent questions in a single thread? --
1) Would simply walking on a sidewalk at a brisk pace meet the standard for detaining and searching a citizen without consent? If not, would a court appointed defense attorney be likely to challenge with a motion to suppress? In San Antonio, judges routinely ignore the state law which requires appointed council be selected via a rotating roster. This has me concerned that such council would always push for a plea bargain, so as to lower court costs & remain in the good graces of the judge.

2) I was also hoping to find out if the teeny, tiniest bit of methamphetamine residue (a burnt up speck) on a makeshift pyrex pipe, be sufficient to sustain a felony possession charge. (As has been filed against a good friend of mine who has a prior felony drug conviction.) Any insight would be appreciated. Thank You.
 


Some Random Guy

Senior Member
Would simply walking on a sidewalk at a brisk pace meet the standard for detaining and searching a citizen without consent?
Depends on what type of search was conducted. If it was a simple pat down (Terry frisk), then you are talking about a much lower standard. Of course, the justification of the search is unlikely to be "subject was walking fast". You will need to read the arrest report to see the details of the officers justification.

If not, would a court appointed defense attorney be likely to challenge with a motion to suppress?
Suppressing the evidence seems like the best option for getting out of the charge, since possession is a very simple thing - either you have it or you don't. So the attorney would surely consider suppressing th eevidence, but whether a motion is filed really depends on all of the facts of your case.

In San Antonio, judges routinely ignore the state law which requires appointed council be selected via a rotating roster. This has me concerned that such council would always push for a plea bargain, so as to lower court costs & remain in the good graces of the judge.
Counsel may believe a plea bargain to be in your best interest. If you truly don't want to plea down, then be clear that you don't want to do it. But be prepared for your attorney, who will likely have seen dozens of cases like yours, to give you a blunt assessment of your chances at trial.
 

Isis1

Senior Member
Were you in possession of this teeny tiny speck, Horton? Have you been tested positive for meth?
 

dave33

Senior Member
I do not believe that a brisk walk would justify a search. That being said, you can bet the officer listed something else for the p.c. and the search. As was pointed out above you will need to see the report to find the reason for the search. The p.d will file the motion if you insist but most times with a p.d. a trial is not in your best interest( for several reasons). The answer to #2 is simply yes. gdlck.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top