Ep. #215: Can Officers Search for Evidence Without a Formal Arrest?

📌 United States v. Pope, 686 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2012) - Officer was at a party in the desert when defendant approached him, under the influence of marijuana. Officer asked defendant if he had any marijuana on him, which defendant eventually admitted he did. Officer then directed defendant to remove the marijuana from his pockets, which defendant did. The court found this was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. However, the search was not illegal because it was supported by probable cause and because exigent circumstances justified searching Pope without a warrant. For a Supreme Court case, take a look at Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973). In this case, the Court upheld a warrantless search for scrapings under a suspect's fingernails, which ultimately revealed traces of blood and skin cells and fabric from a strangled victim's nightgown, even though the suspect had not been placed under formal arrest - explaining, (1) the detention of the suspect “sufficiently apprised” the suspect of the officer's suspicions “to motivate him to attempt to destroy what evidence he could without attracting further attention”; (2) the evidence (the residue of blood, skin, and fabric under the suspect's fingernails) was “read [ily] destructib[le]”; and (3) the search itself was a “very limited intrusion.” In your hypothetical, this would similarly be a "very limited intrusion" - searching a suspect's pockets would be less of an interference with a suspect's rights than digging under his fingernails! The Court in Cupp v. Murphy relied on Chimel v California, recognizing that "the scope of a warrantless search must be commensurate with the rationale that excepts the search from the warrant requirement.” Id at 295. The Court also distinguished a “full Chimel search” incident to a formal arrest from the “very limited search” present in Murphy where no arrest took place at the time of the search. Id. at 296. If you want some factors to incorporate into your report, here are those identified by United States v. Chapel, 55 F.3d 1416, 1419 (9th Cir.1995) - (1) there was probable cause to arrest Pope, (2) there was a high risk that evidence would have been destroyed ( i.e., an exigent circumstance), and (3) the search was commensurate with the circumstances necessitating the intrusion. Authored by Blue to Gold Instructor John Wiehn ----- ✅ Drop a like and subscribe, thank you for your support! 🥰 🚨 Do have another roadside chat question? Send it here: https://www.bluetogold.com/show Blue to Gold Training: 🔻Class Schedules - https://www.bluetogold.com/calendar 🔻On-demand Trainings - https://university.bluetogold.com/ 🔻Free Legal Webinar Trainings - https://www.bluetogold.com/calendar?c... 🔻Book Store and Training Materials - https://www.bluetogold.com/store Connect with us, learn us more. We keep our updates and news posted on social media: 🔻Facebook -   / bluetogold   🔻Instagram -   / bluetogold   🔻Twitter -   / bluetogold   🔻LinkedIn -   / bluetogold   🔻TikTok -   / bluetogoldtraining   #LawEnforcementTraining #PoliceTraining #LegalEducation #arrest #evidence #searchandseizure #search #seizure