Posted on Apr 18, 2015
Does an individual have the right to see a search authorization prior to a search?
6.78K
20
25
1
1
0
For those with a law enforcement background, I have a question specifically for you based on a situation another patrol of mine encountered tonight. The situation is as follows:
A individual buys an illegal substance from an undercover law enforcement officer. After purchasing a large quantity, the arrest is not made and the individuals (who are not servicemembers or federal employees) then proceed to drive to an installation access point. A patrol is requested to stop and search the vehicle when it does. No consent has been given by the individual. No search authorization is acknowledged by the patrol, and there is no plain view to fall back on. A search is conducted where the contraband is found with more illicit substances and one knife, out of reach. An apprehension is made, and they are transported.
After the fact, a search authorization has been stated to existed, but as of now, was not seen nor were the specific details of its extent stated. Upon completion of transport, the individual requests to see a search authorization prior to a strip search ordered by the undercover law enforcement agency which supposedly covers this as well. A search authorization is never provided, and they complete the search finding additional contraband.
My question is, at what point, if at any, is this violating the 4th Amendment rights? Keep in mind that there is no holding cells, and the individual would be released to the unit. I have my own opinion on it, but I'm interested in what others think?
I am not asking whether they are committing a criminal act, nor whether they should still be punished. What is or is not legal strictly. We are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not circumvent it when it makes things easier. They were wrong clearly, but that does not mean they are not entitled to their rights. Thanks for all responses in advance!
A individual buys an illegal substance from an undercover law enforcement officer. After purchasing a large quantity, the arrest is not made and the individuals (who are not servicemembers or federal employees) then proceed to drive to an installation access point. A patrol is requested to stop and search the vehicle when it does. No consent has been given by the individual. No search authorization is acknowledged by the patrol, and there is no plain view to fall back on. A search is conducted where the contraband is found with more illicit substances and one knife, out of reach. An apprehension is made, and they are transported.
After the fact, a search authorization has been stated to existed, but as of now, was not seen nor were the specific details of its extent stated. Upon completion of transport, the individual requests to see a search authorization prior to a strip search ordered by the undercover law enforcement agency which supposedly covers this as well. A search authorization is never provided, and they complete the search finding additional contraband.
My question is, at what point, if at any, is this violating the 4th Amendment rights? Keep in mind that there is no holding cells, and the individual would be released to the unit. I have my own opinion on it, but I'm interested in what others think?
I am not asking whether they are committing a criminal act, nor whether they should still be punished. What is or is not legal strictly. We are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not circumvent it when it makes things easier. They were wrong clearly, but that does not mean they are not entitled to their rights. Thanks for all responses in advance!
4th Amendment
Law
Bill of Rights
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
7
7
0
If the suspect vehicle was on the installation, such as the approach to a gate, it may be subject to search without warrant.
Need a JAG for more detailed reading.
Need a JAG for more detailed reading.
(7)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
True, but that also could easily be shown to be targeted for search compared to normal random checks sir. Perhaps that's incorrect, but in my experience, there has never been an instance where using the gate to conduct a thorough search on only one specific vehicle has been allowed. Random vehicle checks yes, but that was not the case. Same with plain view visual check into say the backseat and such, but this was not used for the probable cause either.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
In law enforcement, Yes, we must follow the 4th amendment, and all rules regarding searches and seizures. If a search authorization is needed, most times they are obtained via a military magistrate (from SJA) over the phone for expediency.
It has to be completely legal, or it will not stand up in court; "fruits of the poisonous tree"
ACP searches are a whole different issue.
Holding cells are also a different issue too, as only certain people can approve pre-trial confinement, and this authorization (confinement order) is not within the MP world.
Strip searches too, are another issue as well. These are generally not used in everyday law enforcement operations.
If someone purposely circumvented the rules for the purpose of gaining evidence or any other reason, than (A) this will be hard to prosecute, and (B) those who did, need to be held accountable.
It has to be completely legal, or it will not stand up in court; "fruits of the poisonous tree"
ACP searches are a whole different issue.
Holding cells are also a different issue too, as only certain people can approve pre-trial confinement, and this authorization (confinement order) is not within the MP world.
Strip searches too, are another issue as well. These are generally not used in everyday law enforcement operations.
If someone purposely circumvented the rules for the purpose of gaining evidence or any other reason, than (A) this will be hard to prosecute, and (B) those who did, need to be held accountable.
(4)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
My thoughts mirror this, but unfortunately I was not around until after it had already been done.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
You bring up a great point SGT (Join to see), there are signs upon the access gates that inform all personnel entering that their entry is a consent to search......signs are posted and if this was in fact a random search (every fourth car, every silver car etc) established before the search I'd say nothing to worry about. With the facts of the case that you've shared, I am sure there will be an opine, let us know what you find out as this could very well be a problem - especially if there was no probable cause involved.
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Thanks CSM Michael J. Uhlig , I'm just trying to look out for my guys and teach them the right way. I think, at a minimum, they took unnecessary risks for a slam dunk case.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google