The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here attorney and senior legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing on the roadside chat from the studio. Here we got a great question from the great state of Idaho, which is going to be my future residence one day already bought the lands as the build the house. So, here's, here's we got going on there.

So this question is, can police evict tenants or occupants from a long term stay motel? Man, before I get into this, this is this area of the law is really underdeveloped. We certainly have a lot of cases from evicting people from hotels and hotels, and, and so forth. And of course, we have lots of cases from trying to get people out of, you know, apartments and houses. And then in between those two is the long term stay the extended stay America type of situation. And let's go through it. Alright, let's go. This is good stuff here. Okay. So here's a scenario. A local hotel, it was a Motel Six, and now it's called the extended stay. Is it? Yeah, extended stay. What I mean, I would love to, I would love to live there. It just sounds like a beautiful place. And so the cop, you know, gets requests by staff to evict people, right. And they want to know, you know, does and while we're evicting people other questions, the COP is asking, you know, do we have to? Does the manager have to give the notice to evict? Can we do it for the manager? Can we walk right into the door? Can we just use the master key and just walk right in? Alright, so hopefully, this video is not too long. But I'm telling you, this video is going to help you because this issue comes up all the time. Okay, let's first start with the premise of dealing with true hotels that are your stereotypical, you know, one night to night type of scenarios. So the law is pretty clear on this one. Hotels and motels have a common law, right? to evict people for cause these are what the courts refer to as transient lodging, right? The person knows that they're not going to be staying there forever. And that if they break the rules, it's not unreasonable to expect to get the boot. So the law is pretty clear. If the management calls you and says, Hey, we need help the victim this person because of partying, drugs, smoking, you know, whatever breaking stuff, then the laws pretty clear that they got to leave. But what about them if they pay for the next week? Anthony, that's a civil issue...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero. Here, attorney and senior legal instructor with Blue to Gold law enforcement training bringing the roadside chat from the studio. This question, let's see, look on my computer here. This question comes from an officer in the great state of Texas, right? Maybe it's the maybe it's the Great Republic of Texas. I don't know, technically, if it's, you know, what they call it down there. Alright. So this officer has a great scenario. And basically the question is, is Can an intoxicated owner of a vehicle give consent to search? Right despite being intoxicated. So the scenario here, the officer says that they stopped a vehicle with three occupants, the owner of the vehicle is in the rear seat due to be intoxicated, so they have a designated driver, that's always nice. And they see some old containers in the vehicle. So they're gonna get into the vehicle based on that alone. But that's not a very comprehensive search by any means. Because you can only look in places where open containers are likely to be so you don't get the trunk. You don't get the hood. You don't get tiny little places. Usually. I know what you're gonna say. But Anthony, there's little shooters can be in there. Okay, if the court buys it, then that's fine. But while doing there, they while in the car, retrieving the open containers, the officer see some Swisher Sweets, which is, you know, very commonly associated with marijuana cigarettes. So that's where we're at. Okay. So, and those are under the seat. And that's another telltale sign that they're probably marijuana cigarettes, right. But the cop then goes to the owner, again, this owner is intoxicated, would have been arrested that behind the wheel and says, Can we search your car? And he or she says yes. Is that consent valid? Based off of these facts? Absolutely. Absolutely. Voluntary intoxication is not going to get you out of consent to search, right? Voluntary intoxication, doesn't get it person out of there consensus search, basically, the role is this. Under the totality of the circumstances, do you reasonably believe that the person has the capacity to know that it's it's a, you know, they have a choice, right? It's a yes or no, they have the capacity understand that they have a choice. That's it. That's really all it takes. And the burden of proof for the court is usually pretty low. In most states, it's preponderance of the evidence...1

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold law enforcement training, bringing you another roadside chat from the road. Right. So a lot of these I make are from the studio because of travel restrictions. Or just as more convenient to be honest with you, sometimes I make them because I get so many of these, but I'm here in Greenville, Tennessee, trying to catch up on these, these questions. And the next one is going to be from an officer in New York, right, just north of New York City. And basically, the officer is give me a scenario here, where under the lights kind of coming into the car, but it is what it is, hopefully that's not too distracting. Alright, so the question is, when officers respond to an OD, right, and the person is is revived, they're going to go to the hospital? Can you take their cell phone as evidence and to see, you know, who the dealer is, you know, because that's that person could potentially be charged for contributing to the, to the overdose? What if the, the person, you know, ends up dying? Can you searches, you know, basically seize any cell phones and the circumstances? Here's, here's my, my feedback. Number one, obviously, without any question, taking a person's cell phone is a fourth amendment issue, right? It's a seizure on the Fourth Amendment, especially if they're alive, right? Because they're alive, and they have a possessory interest in their cell phone. Therefore, you know, the seizure has to be reasonable. Now, if it's a, if the person is being transported to the hospital, and you're going to conduct a criminal investigation to determine, you know, who sold the narcotics to the person and so forth, and seizing the phone in order to get a warrant. It's reasonable, that's, that's, you know, that's, that's gonna be reasonable, they're, you know, likely, you're gonna have probable cause. But the problem is going to be seizing it as a matter of routine, and then keeping it in the evidence locker, whatever,

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law enforcement training, bringing you the roadside chat from the studio. Let's get started. So today's question is, what is plain view? Alright, what is plain view? So, plain view is nothing more than right to be right to see. Right. That's how I train it right to be right to see, hear and smell. So basically the idea here is that if you are lawfully present, there is no search under the Fourth Amendment, by using your God given senses, there is no search, if you are lawfully in somebody's home, investigating a domestic violence. And you're looking around the home, even if you had the intent to find something, right. You know, let's say that the husband is a suspected drug dealer, and you are lawfully present because of that. Because of the investigation in your mind like Well, hey, since I'm here, let me see if I can find plain view evidence. And you look over, and you see drugs, stuff behind a book in the bookcase, you're like, well, that's a little, you know, cellophane package, you know, sticking out a little bit, he tried to hide it before you guys came in and didn't do a good job. That's plain view. Right? That's plain view, you have a right to be where you're at. You're using your God given senses. And the evidence is immediately apparent. So that's another thing that courts will throw in there, they'll say not only do you have to be lawfully present, the evidence has to be immediately apparent as evidence, contraband and so forth. All that means it's not that, you know, you look at it in instantly, you know what it is, right? You know, it's evidence. You don't you can look at and be like, Wait, is that what am I seeing what I'm seeing here, you know, so forth. But immediately apparent, basically means that you have probable cause without manipulation. So if you manipulate something that's not playing view, let me give you an example. You're in a home,///

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here Attorney and senior legal instructor with Blue to Gold Law enforcement training, bringing you to the roadside chat from Greenville, Tennessee, where I'm out here for the week teaching. Alright, so this question comes from an officer in South Carolina. And he's asking about, can you compel somebody to provide their fingerprints and or facial recognition to unlock their cell phone? And the answer is yes, the answer is yes. Because fingerprints and facial ID is not testimonial, there is no recognized privacy interests, you know, in your fingerprints in your in your face. So that's generally the case and other, you know, with my legal brain, I'm also thinking of mass facial recognition software, you know, that you're, you're putting downtown, and you're identifying everybody who's downtown, implicates a different constitutional principle, but that's not relevant here. So the point is, is that if you got a court order to basically compel a person to unlock their phone with their fingerprint or facial ID, that would be lawful, that's not a Miranda violation, because it's not testimonial, however, just to get a little more, you know, in depth here, having them provide their password, or even, you know, let's say those like those, the Android type of unlock right, the pattern, that would be a Miranda issue, because the person has to think about their answer. Right. And that's testimonial, and they could incriminate themselves. Now with that, one, you're not going to be able to compel them to provide their password or pattern, unless it's a foregone conclusion. So that's what the doctrine is called. foregone conclusion, a foregone conclusion essentially says this, if you can prove to the court that you know it's on the phone, right, it's not, it's not that you don't know what's on the phone, so that you need the evidence to bolster your case and to prove your elements, then, most likely, they're going to give you a a warrant to basically compel the person to provide their, their password. Now, let me give an example. Let's say a friend of the defendants saw child porn on his phone, he knows his child porn, the guy, the defendant was bragging about it, and so forth...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here attorney and senior legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing you another roadside chat from the studio. Alright, today's question comes from an officer in Utah, and the officer basically asked, do we need a warrant for a death investigation? Okay, well, let's, let's kind of go through this. So the officer says, Look, we get into the house because we have exigency. You know that there's somebody the SES in the home, you know, you know, let's say that the cleaning person comes, and they call and the homeowners dead, and so forth. Alright. So they said that they cannot get a hold of anybody with standing in order to continue the death investigation, right. So I guess, like the cleaning person be a good example, like the cleaning person, generally speaking, cannot let you just search around the home, you know, during the decimal because they don't have a privacy interest in the home enough needed to allow you to have free rein of the house. So. So they want to, you know, they want to look to see if you know, if the depth is suspicious, if the suspect it natural causes, location prescription bottles, or a doctor's information to try to see what the health is, you know, if the person has been to a doctor within the last 30 days, and so forth. So the question is, does this require a warrant? And the general answer is no. Okay. So death investigations, if they're, if there's no foul play, and you're trying to determine the cause of death, and you are in your in the home lawfully, you know, generally speaking, these are not criminal investigations, you're basically playing corner, right, you're, you're basically playing corner, you know, you're trying to find out just like you said, medical issues prescription, you're trying to find the cause you're trying to help find the cause of death. And because that is not a criminal investigation, the US Supreme Court case in Mincy, versus Arizona has and apply. So Mincy is a stands for the proposition that if you are in a murder scene, right inside of a home, the murder itself, obviously a very serious crime, in and of itself is not going to allow you to search the residents for for evidence of the of the murder, without either a consent, or be a warrant, right? There is no murder scene exception to the search warrant requirement. But we don't have that here, you know, officers are in the home, and they're just trying to find the cause of death, there is no murder....

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero. Here attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training bring you another roadside chat from the studio got an excellent question. I'm looking at my computer here from an officer in California. Okay, so the officer basically is asking, Can police go into a neighbor's backyard during a SWAT operation? Excellent question. So let me just kind of give you a little feedback about the scenario here. So during a SWAT operation, let's say a search warrant, SWAT operators are attempting to establish containment next to the house, right to the residence, the target. Now they ask permission to go into somebody's backyard, but they are denied. Can the officers still enter the neighbor's backyard for containment purposes only? or would this be a violation of the Fourth Amendment? Excellent question. And here's your answer. Do you have agency? Right? Do you have actions the agency just to get you into people's backyards? Now? I need to know more facts. Right? I didn't know more facts, why do you believe that? That there's no time to go get additional pre-approval to be in these neighbor's backyard. By the time you get that approval? Whatever, something bad could happen. I need to know what I know. Now, first of all, we're pretty close there logically because this cop is telling me that they got SWAT deployed, you know, on this house, right? In 2021, we're not dusting off Swat, unless it's pretty serious is my impression out there because of the liability that comes with SWAT operations. So we're getting our operators out. And we're gearing up. It's, it's for a serious situation, right? People have guns, and so forth. That could be, you know, a menace and so forth. So I want to know that though. So I guess that goes along with what the operation is about? If this is a, I mean, Wahby does not SWAT for a child porn investigation? I don't know. You're gonna have to sell me on it. But you get my point. So the answer is Look, do you have exigency? Do you have some kind of public safety issue that if you are not in that backyard, this guy could escape and hurt other people? Right? Is this is his this neighbor's house, the only yard that you could have put is the only yard that you could actually potentially have a container like contain this person, there's no alley, there's, there's a huge retaining wall. On the other side. In other words, this neighbor, like it or not, has the best place for us to to be in case this guy comes out. So stuff like that will help. But as a matter if we go into that backyard, and we go to court, and we get sued, now, these, these neighbors are already denying entry. So you know what's going to happen. If the cops go back there anyway, they're likely to get sued, right?..

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here attorney and senior legal instructor with Blue to Gold law enforcement training, bringing you another roadside chat from the studio. Alright, so we got a great question here today from an officer in Texas, the great state of Texas. Alright, so the question is, is can you search a vehicle on curtilage with exigency. And let's go to the scenario, okay, I'm looking at my computer here. Alright. The officer is called to a noise complaint. Upon arrival at a house, right, Upon arrival, he sees a car in the driveway with probably music blaring. He smells the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle. And this one is actually unique in the sense that the car had two tires, you know, to the rear tires on the sidewalk, which violates a city ordinance. But it's, it's safe to say that the other half of the car is on curtilage. Okay, we go to the car, we make contact, right? And can we search the car? The answer is yes. Here's why. Number one is the case Collins v. Virginia, which is the US Supreme Court case that held that police cannot search a car that's on curtilage under the motor vehicle exception alone, alone. And that is for good reason. Because when you're on someone's curtilage, it's like being in their home. I mean, the curtilage is treated like the home itself, according to the US Supreme Court in a case called Florida versus guardians. So if you're going to be on some of these curtilage, you've got to have a damn good reason to why you're there. I mean, knockin talks work. But if you're doing criminal enforcement, on people's curtilage, you better have some exigency, emergency urgency, or you better have their consent. But if you don't have that, you've got to go get a warrant. And the motor vehicle exception, remember, there is no underlying exigency in the car when it's unoccupied, and nobody's near it, and so forth. Right. Some states court cases, we'll talk about that, that the motor vehicle exception is based off of the exigency of the inherently mobile vehicle. But come on. I mean, that's, that is, that may be one way to describe it. And that may be another reason why we allow these searches as far as is making it just this it's kind of bogus, there is no exigency. When you stop a car for speeding, you have probable cause that there's evidence in there, the guy is under arrest in the backseat, you have the car keys. Nobody else is around you, and you're in the boonies, and there is no exigency there. Right? We know that. Okay. So that's why Cosby, Virginia said, look, the motor vehicle exception will not work. However, exigency will now this case is kind of unique, because half the car is on open fields, the sidewalk, and the other half is on curtilage. Remember, you know, called Virginia the car was 100% within the curtilage it was in a carport. So, this one is a little weird. But even if it was actually fully on the driveway, I still think we win because law noise complaint brings us lawfully into view and next to the car we can we can absolutely go to the to the car and address the issue...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero. Here, attorney and senior legal instructor at Blue to Gold law enforcement training, bring you the roadside chat. All right, this question comes from an officer in Alabama. So I'm looking at my email here. And basically, the question is, Can cops use binoculars to view suspects in a public area?

These they want to see, for example, you know, salesman, narcotics,

you know, and so forth. Now, does the officer need probable cause? To do that? Does the cop need probable cause to make contact and so forth? And I have your answer. The answer is very easy. Cops can absolutely use binoculars to see anything that would be open to view, they do not have to, let's say the, the people are in a park.

And cops want to be 500 yards away. With ultra powerful binoculars. They don't want to burn their position, right? They can absolutely be five yards away, not visible to these people to the naked eye use binoculars to see what they're doing. There is no expectation of privacy when the people are in a public place from being surveilled. So that's by binoculars to say the least right? You start bringing in drones and you start bringing in pole cameras, you know, maybe sometimes the answers get a little murky, but absolutely when it comes to binoculars, so basically, binoculars are free game, except when you point them towards windows of a house, right? Or backyards, can golf get a little tricky. But especially into Windows, if you are looking into Windows, and you are seeing something that is not visible with the naked eye from a lawful vantage point, then that is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Let me give you an example.

Cops could stand on the sidewalk in front of a home and with the naked eye, see cocaine on the kitchen table. But they don't want to be on the sidewalk looking, you know this guy's house because they're going to get burned. So instead they go 200 yards back

and use binoculars and see the same thing would that be lawful? If the court believes and you're going to convince the court of this, that you could have seen the same thing with the naked eye from the sidewalk, you will win.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hello, everyone, it's Anthony Bandiero. Here, attorney and legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training. And here's today's question. Can cops automatically tow a car or rental car? If the driver is not on the rental agreement? Well, the answer, we don't really have a lot of case on this very issue. Because really, it's not gonna be necessarily a search or seizure issue. It may come up if drugs are found and so forth. But fundamentally, it's a it's a tort claim. So here's my advice. I would not tell it not automatically because it's a civil issue. You are a criminal investigator, you investigate crimes. Is there a crime being committed in your presence? By a non authorized driver driving the hertz or Enterprise rental car? I don't see it. Do you have a law that says they can't do it? If you do, that's a different story. But if they have a valid license, and the car is not reported, stolen, embezzled, and so forth, it's not your fight. Right? That's between them and Hertz. If hertz has a problem with what they're doing, and they find out about it, then you know, they can call a lawyer. Now, does this prevent you from calling the rental company and letting them know what's going on with their car? No, I don't see a problem with that. That's that would fund the fall under committee caretaking? Do you reasonably believe that hertz may want to recover their car if they find out that a non authorized driver is driving it because that person may not have insurance may not have a license, and therefore their vehicle may be damaged? And they have little to no recourse? Absolutely. Go? Go ahead and call the rental company and ask them what they want to do. But don't forget that. A couple things. Number one, it's the rental car cars choice, the rental companies choice, it's not your choice. It's not your car. If they don't want to, if you say hey, I really think you should tow it Don't say stuff like that. Just say hey, look, this is what I got a monitor traffic stop. What do you want to do? The other thing that cops ask while we're talking about rental cars is Anthony, can hertz give me consent? Search that car? Absolutely not. Not until the point that they recover it. Now, if they recover it because of a vile, you know, they're violating the contract, then hertz can give you consent to search the car, you may search it anyway under inventory. But that doesn't answer the one burning question is okay...