Searching a wallet

[OHRoadwarrior]

Though we are not getting excited, yes, you can go to jail. Hire a lawyer ASAP. Even if you qualify for a PD, they may not attempt to argue invalid search. This can ruin your entire life.

470b. Every person who displays or causes or permits to be
displayed or has in his or her possession any driver's license or
identification card of the type enumerated in Section 470a with the
intent that the driver's license or identification card be used to
facilitate the commission of any forgery, is punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by
imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

Do people really go to jail over this? Am I right thinking that I'm better off just having it in possession instead of being caught actually using it??


Thank you Stevef.
So the motion to suppress/hearing is completely separate from a trial and just for a judge to decide?
So, if that happened, and I lost, are prosecutors usually, or never, still willing to do plea deals?

I know your example was an example but, the guy I was talking to is not a "known drug dealer". He has never even been caught in possession of anything (like personal possession even). The cops just suspect he is. (don't ask me) So would that be a positive for me? That they have no proof he is anyway?



No he didn't. I know the guy, he is not connected to the police.
Would a CA court know about a trespass charge that was dismissed after juvie diversion in WA?

 

[lm123]

Though we are not getting excited, yes, you can go to jail. Hire a lawyer ASAP. Even if you qualify for a PD, they may not attempt to argue invalid search. This can ruin your entire life.

Ok. Does CA have some first offender thing? Can you be a 1st offender if you had 1 juvie case in another state?

Sorry, what do they mean by:

with the intent that the driver's license or identification card be used to facilitate the commission of any forgery,

That sounds like more than just possessing one?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Ok. Does CA have some first offender thing? Can you be a 1st offender if you had 1 juvie case in another state?

Sorry, what do they mean by:



That sounds like more than just possessing one?

What were you going to say the purpose of you having it was?

 

[lm123]

What were you going to say the purpose of you having it was?

When would I be asked?

Wouldn't the prosecution need to prove it was to be used to facilitate the commission of any forgery?

 

[Sloop John D]

If I'm not mistaken, probable cause is not sufficient to perform a full search of a person who has not been arrested. A warrant would normally be required.

A stop and frisk is generally acceptable on suspicion, but going through the contents of a wallet is beyond what would typically be allowed.

Did you do anything that would have suggested you were giving the officer consent? Did you voluntarily hand over the wallet? Did you give permission for the officer to look through it?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

When would I be asked?

Wouldn't the prosecution need to prove it was to be used to facilitate the commission of any forgery?

In court would be a good place. I would say the burden is relatively low. Were you planning on claiming you made it and were carrying it for ****z n giggles?

 

[tranquility]

If I'm not mistaken, probable cause is not sufficient to perform a full search of a person who has not been arrested. A warrant would normally be required.

A stop and frisk is generally acceptable on suspicion, but going through the contents of a wallet is beyond what would typically be allowed.

Did you do anything that would have suggested you were giving the officer consent? Did you voluntarily hand over the wallet? Did you give permission for the officer to look through it?

Probable cause allows a search. Reasonable suspicion allows a frisk.

By the way, I love stevef's post as well. That is how it will be testified to without a doubt. (With the addition of extensive training.)

 

[Sloop John D]

Probable cause allows a search.

That's unfortunate. If that's the case I would probably argue that two people talking in front of a liquor store doesn't amount to probable cause. I would say it's reasonable suspicion at the most, and even that seems like a stretch when you consider how many people probably converse in front of a liquor store in a high traffic area on a daily basis. Of course I'm not the judge...

 

[lm123]

Did you do anything that would have suggested you were giving the officer consent? Did you voluntarily hand over the wallet? Did you give permission for the officer to look through it?

No, I didn't give it to him or give him permission. I asked him why he was (he said 'because of the drug transaction'), I told him I didn't agree/think he could.

In court would be a good place. I would say the burden is relatively low. Were you planning on claiming you made it and were carrying it for ****z n giggles?

Sorry if I'm being dumb about court. But they're not just going to up and ask me are they? Wouldn't I need to be testifying?

That's unfortunate. If that's the case I would probably argue that two people talking in front of a liquor store doesn't amount to probable cause. I would say it's reasonable suspicion at the most, and even that seems like a stretch when you consider how many people probably converse in front of a liquor store in a high traffic area on a daily basis. Of course I'm not the judge...

This took place in a skatepark.

 

[HighwayMan]

Lets just say that what you said is 100% true.

Let's just say that you are wrong again. Reasonable suspicion and searches do not mix.

 

[dave33]

Let's just say that you are wrong again. Reasonable suspicion and searches do not mix.

Really? Well then you may want to tell several million others that if they have reasonable suspicion they cannot search. I wonder what planet you live on?

 

[Sloop John D]

Really? Well then you may want to tell several million others that if they have reasonable suspicion they cannot search. I wonder what planet you live on?

The general rule is that a search is not allowed unless a warrant has been issued. This general rule is muddled with exceptions, but the two that are most applicable to this situation would be the Terry stop rule and possibly some type of probable cause exception.

A Terry stop is better known as a stop and frisk. If a police officer has reasonable suspicion, which is more than a hunch but not quite probable cause, he can usually perform a brief stop to ask questions and also perform a pat down. From what I recall, the pat down is mainly for officer safety and is supposed to be for the search of weapons. An officer can't use a Terry stop as an opportunity to check every item he feels in your pocket.

If the officer had reasonable suspicion in this instance, he was probably able to perform a pat down, but going through the OP's wallet would likely be considered excessive.

In certain circumstances, an officer may perform a full search if he has probable cause. Probable cause means that the officer has been made aware of facts that would make it more likely than not that a search will lead to the discovery of contraband or the fruits of a crime. The probable cause exception is most often applied to vehicles. I'm not aware of any exception that would apply to a person's body, but this area of law has been developing significantly since the 1960s, so it is possible. If someone has a case on this they can post, it would be helpful.

Because of the potential sentence involved here, you will likely be given the option of using the Public Defender. The PD will probably have experience dealing with unlawful searches and will be able to guide you better than anyone on this forum. It would be a good idea to discuss the possibility that an unlawful search has occurred with the PD and weigh your options.

 

[HighwayMan]

This general rule is muddled with exceptions, but the two that are most applicable to this situation would be the Terry stop rule...

I see you've gone to the dave33 school of law.

This is wrong. A search is not permitted. What you are referring to (probably) is a frisk. A frisk and a search are two very different things.

 

[HighwayMan]

Really? Well then you may want to tell several million others that if they have reasonable suspicion they cannot search. I wonder what planet you live on?

Once again you've demonstrated no/incorrect knowledge of the law, so your query would be more appropriately directed towards yourself.

Reasonable suspicion does not give a police officer a reason to conduct a search. Period.

 

[HighwayMan]

...he can usually perform a brief stop to ask questions and also perform a pat down...

A pat down, or frisk, is not automatic either.