A father was planning to take a trip abroad and went to the local federal building to obtain the required passport. His son who was home from college, agreed to accompany him. To gain entry to the building, both were required to pass through a metal detection device. A sign was posted saying that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the building. The father passed through without difficulty, but the alarm sounded when the son passed through. The security officer on duty searched the son’s person. In the son’s pocket, the security guard found a white envelope. He opened the envelope and found a marijuana cigarette. The son was arrested and arraigned in the federal district court. His attorney moved to have the evidence suppressed.
The prosecution’s best argument is that:
A. There was no search.
B. The officer conducted only a stop and frisk.
C. The search was a reasonable one.
D. Although there was a search, no warrant was required because it was incident to a lawful arrest.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer C is correct. It is important to note that this question asks what the prosecution’s best argument is, not whether they will in fact prevail. Although this choice is general and conclusory, it does state the core requirement of the Fourth Amendment-the lawfulness of reasonable searches-and, therefore, this is the best choice, if only because the other choices are clearly wrong. (Although this is the prosecution’s best argument, it probably will not be successful, because the search was not reasonable under the circumstances or pursuant to a valid arrest.)
Answer A is incorrect. It is important to note that this question asks what the prosecution’s best argument is, not whether they will in fact prevail. A search is not limited to the property or the vehicle of a person, but also includes the person himself. In this case, there was clearly a search, because the security officer went beyond a pat-down for weapons and searched Fred’s person when he went into his shirt pocket.
Answer B is incorrect. It is important to note that this question asks what the prosecution’s best argument is, not whether they will in fact prevail. An officer who does not have probable cause to arrest may make a limited search of the person, such as a pat-down of the outer clothing for concealed weapons, if he has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous and that the frisk is necessary for the preservation of his safety and that of others. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Since the metal detector sounded when the son passed through it, the security officer had a reasonable suspicion sufficient to frisk the son for weapons in the interest of security. However, the security officer went beyond a pat-down for weapons and searched the son’s pocket, which is beyond the permissible Terry stop and frisk. It has been held that, because a frisk must be a limited pat-down for weapons, a search for narcotics in the pocket of the defendant is outside the scope of a proper frisk. Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968).
Answer D is incorrect. Until the marijuana was found, the son was not arrested and there was no probable cause to arrest the son. Therefore, the arrest was the result of the unlawful search. Further, probable cause for a search cannot be supplied by what is actually discovered; it must be determined from the circumstances known to the officer before the search.
In my outline, under “Admissibility of Evidence” under Stop and Frisk, it says, “During a pat down, an officer may reach into the suspect’s clothing and seize any item that the officer reasonably believes, based on its “plain feel,” is a weapon OR contraband, and such items are admissible as evidence.” Is this wrong? (and he could probably feel the cigarette through an envelope, right?)
Charece,
That’s my understanding too! I thought that if something felt suspicious during the pat down for weapons that an officer reasonably believed to be contraband, the seizure was constitutional.
Lisa,
I’m not sure where we’re going wrong! I think I’m gonna stick to this understanding for the exam.
Big help, big help. And seurplaitve news of course.
B. During stop and frisk if weapons found they are admissible. Stop and frisk could lead to Plain View which makes the contraband, the marijuana cigarette, admissible.
B.
Answer – D
B. The officer only needed articulable and reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the son, and he formed that suspicion when the metal detector’s alarm sounded as he passed through. During a stop and frisk, an officer may reach into the suspect’s clothing and take anything that he reasonably believes is a weapon or contraband. So long as he reasonably believed contraband was in the envelope (and it was), the search could be upheld. A is wrong because there was a search. I think C is wrong because reasonableness of a search is not enough. The officer must have a warrant unless the search falls under one of the 6 warrant exceptions. D is wrong because there was no arrest.
answer B. vii) Stop and frisk to search for weapons
viii) Weapons always admissible as long as the stop was reasonable
ix) Non-weapons: If it appeared from the frisk, that it could be a weapon or contraband, admissible.
This is where I am stuck between B and C. and I dont know if I made the right choice.
B – The detector beeped so there was cause for a Terry stop for weapons. I think there’s a case involving airport security and heroin in an envelope? I may be wrong… Oh well.
Answer C
C.