Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney and senior legal instructor for blue to gold Law enforcement and training during the roadside chat. All right, this question where's this officer read me see if it says it actually doesn't say because it came from a personal email, but no problem. Alright, this officer asks, Can police force a GSR test on someone who doesn't want their hat or their hand swapped. And a GSR test for the non-police watchers here is a gunshot residue test. So basically, you know, the Q tip type stuff to see if there's gunshot residue on their hand, which would indicate that they're the ones that fired the firearm? And the answer is yes. And here's why. So first of all, I want to kind of bring my book into the mix here. The search and seizures valve guide, best selling search and seizure book in America. Please check it out. It's on Amazon. It's also on our website bluetogold.com , just click on store and you'll see all the products that we have for you folks that do your job constitutionally. And the it's not directly on the GSR, but it is under a topic called fingernail scrapes. But it's the same kind of constitutional principle. And this issue actually went to the US Supreme Court in 1973. So it happened is a guy named I think his name was cup. But he went into to have an interview with police about the death of his wife. Now the police suspected that he was the perpetrator, he actually killed his wife. And he was saying no, was it me, you know, this is what happened. And so somebody else did it and so forth. Well, while talking to him, he you know, he made some emissions they had they actually had probable cause for him. And they looked at his fingernails, and they saw that there was debris, right blood and skin tissue, maybe even some material fabric material under his fingernails. And the wife was strangled, and so forth. And they then forced him, they forced the scrape of his fingernails, and they sent it to the lab. And that material under his fingernails was from her dress. And it was like DNA, if I got my facts straight. It's been a while since I've read the case. But the point was, was that evidence was used to convict him. Now the husband went to the US Supreme Court and said, Hey, that was an intrusion that you didn't have a warrant, and so forth. And the Supreme Court upheld it. Right, that this was, you know, basically, you know, where there was probable cause. It was they considered a limited intrusion. Right? It's not that intrusive. It's not like a cavity search, right? It's not that intrusive. And it was readily destructible. Right? The destructibility of it. So there is that that agency that kind of exists as well. So if he's not complying, if he's not, you know, cooperating and you know, he's holding his hands and so forth. Can you do a forced GSR swap? I would say the answer is yes. Especially if he's not being cooperative, because what is he going to try to do? While you're, if you're going to go the warrant route, if he's being non-compliant,..

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

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training. i This question comes from an officer in Colorado basically, the officer saying, Can I force a passenger to keep his backpack in a car before I start searching it under probable cause? Right? And the answer is yes, absolutely. Under a case called us versus Ross, if a police officer has probable cause to search a vehicle, they get to conduct a search in the same manner as if they have a warrant. So if, if they if the police believe that that backpack could contain the evidence, then they get to search it, right. And there's also another case out there, I think it's Wyoming versus hufton. Might be often that but somebody in the comments can probably correct me if I'm wrong. But that's another case where the Supreme Court has held that if cops have probable cause for a vehicle, they get to search containers, including those belonging to passengers, again, if they reasonably believe the contraband could be found in that location. So straightforward question. straightforward answer for once. Okay, I hope that helps. Guys. Before you, you leave, please hit like, subscribe, leave a comment, share with your friends. And before until next time, my friends stay safe and keep keep up the great job you doing.

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 a roadside chat. This question comes from an officer in Colorado. And the question is, can police search a shoplifting suspects purse for evidence without making an arrest?

And the answer is going to be yes. Definitely, as far as yes, in Colorado, but I believe the answer is yes, everywhere. But let's go through this. Now. Generally speaking, if you have probable cause for somebody, right, and you search them, and you find evidence and you arrest them, Most courts are going to call that a search incident to arrest but Anthony, the search came before the rest that didn't come incident to well, the supreme court requires that the search be contemporaneous, which courts have interpreted to be either right before or right after, you know, generally speaking, however, when you're not going to make an arrest, the PC search is generally authorized under exigency, right? Because when you stop out somebody do you really have you have probable cause that they have evidence they're going to cite and release them or whatever. Do you really have enough time under the circumstances to go get the warrant? Probably not most horses just fight on their agency. And here's the background. So got this batch to $1 General stain that they caught something you know, they saw something stealing makeup and putting in a purse now first of all, we know we got a classy girl, you know, I'm saying if you got a suspect who's stealing makeup from the Dollar General. Ah, that's gonna be a that's a good looking lady right there. Okay, look, she's gonna look like a clown after she puts that makeup on. But I digress at least be a little more bougie. You know, I'm saying like my wife, and you know, get it at least from Walmart. Or if you're really nice, Tarjay. But I can, I will continue. They knew she put in her purse. ...

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

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing the roadside chat from a cop. In Utah, the cop asked me something that's actually a base in statutory law, but has a search and seizure component. The officer says, Can you arrest someone for DUI? If you did not see them in actual physical control of the vehicle? Alright.

So the answer is it depends on your state law, because DUI statutes come in two flavors, what are both? What are they have both. One is that the statute requires that the person be driving at the time of contact, or, and or they be in actual physical control, which is where you can prove circumstantially that they were driving the vehicle previously. Now, most states in my experience, allow both right? You the person's driving, right? Which obviously, implies that they're an actual physical 12 That time, or you can also prove circumstantially that they were driving the vehicle in the past that is most common with accidents, right? You show up on an accident scene, and the person's not in the vehicle? How do you prove that they drove? They're intoxicated. That's circumstantial evidence. You can also have direct evidence by them making admissions and so forth, but usually gonna have to have something more than just the admission that they drove the vehicle. So let me give you the the hypo or the hypothetical here, right. So the officer gets a report of an erratic driver. Apparently, many phone many calls on this. He was also reported be all over the roadway. He had traffic cones, he ran people off the roadway, we're looking at a possible DUI. They have the plate, they run it, and they find the vehicle is parked at the residence unoccupied. 10 minutes later, they knock on the door. The driver says, Yeah, I came from that area, right. He makes admissions that he was in the area of where the traffic cones and people ran up the road. But he tells the cops that he drank alcohol since then at home. Now the officer saying in his training experience, there's no way he could have got that intoxicated within the 10 minutes, meaning most people don't drink that heavily within the last 10 minutes, and so forth. Now, the question ultimate question again is, can we arrest this person? ...

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

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for Blue to gold's got a question from an officer in Arizona. He says, When can I search a vehicle? After I arrest the driver for DUI? Alright, so, you know, we're making some assumptions here that the vehicle is probably not going to be towed. You know, somebody might come on scene and pick it up, or it's gonna be allowed to be parked. And officer wants to know, hey, look, Can I Can I still search it, you know, as incident to arrest? Based on DUI?

Well, you can search cars on a two circumstances, right? I mean, besides inventories, and consent, and so forth, when it comes to these DUIs? Number one is you have probable cause if you have probable cause that there's evidence in the vehicle, you search it. That's the motor vehicle exception. However, there's another way. And it's actually was provided to us by a very pretty famous case called Arizona versus dance. Arizona versus ganz says that you can search a vehicle if you have reason to believe there is a fence related evidence inside the vehicle. Okay, let's, let's parse that out a little bit. First, is this, this reason to believe, is reason to believe a lower or higher standard than probable cause? Well, it's lower, it's close to like reasonable suspicion. That's the first thing so you can actually search the car with less than probable cause. The second component is reason to believe what that there is offense related evidence instead, inside the vehicle. So if you're going to resume for DUI, do you have any reason to believe that offense related evidence can be inside the vehicle? Most of the time, the answer is going to be? Yes. But don't make it automatic. Don't think that, you know, don't go to court and say, Your Honor, if I arrest somebody for DUI, I'm automatically going to search that vehicle. Don't say stuff like that. Say, why would you have a reason to believe that there's something in the car? The key is articulation. They're coming from they're intoxicated and recovering from a friend's house? Well, it's pretty common that people bring BYOB they bring alcohol to people's houses, and then they retain some of it when they leave, right because alcohol is expensive. You know, you know, it's just kind of a it's a common thing. You know, you're cheap. You know, your friend, your friend feeds you some ribs and some burgers. And during leave your your leftover alcohol from the consume later, you cheap bastard. Right? So stuff like that. I another one, you ask the guy he's coming from a bar? Oh, yeah. How much did you have to drink two beers? Well, take him at face value if he really only had two beers. And he is clearly over the limit, by way more than two beers could do now have a reason to believe that there could be alcohol in that car. Think about it. Right? He saved two beers, then how did it get so drunk? He probably is, you know, maybe has opened containers, even though oftentimes these people lie to you about their consumption. But look, you know, he's telling you two beers. Could there be a receipt in the vehicle for a bar tab? The point is, is that you know, you want to you want to have some articulation, but it's but it's great that this is a this is a great lesson for you. There is actually multiple ways to search vehicles. These are just two of them: probably cars, and the Gantt reasons to believe search. So there's your answer. Short, sweet, keep them coming. Do me a favor, guys. Before you exit the door. Hit the like button. Subscribe, please subscribe and maybe do comment if you have time. Alright, until next time, my friends. Stay safe.

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

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here, Attorney, Senior Legal instructor for Blue to Gold law enforcement training, bringing a roadside chat here. We got a question when Officer in Texas. And he says he asks, can you search in Uber passengers property based off of a K9 alert?

And the answer is yes if the officer reasonably believes that the contraband could be in that container, right. So if the, you know, I just give an extreme example, if the Uber driver is under surveillance as a drug dealer, right. And, you know, all the evidence points towards the target of this, you know, of this, of this investigation is that the Uber driver is involved in narcotics, they make a traffic stop for, you know, let's say, some violation of the motor vehicle code. And during that ride in the citation, they run the dog around the car, free or sniff. So far, so good in most states, the dog alerts, and the first place they go to and let's say they saw that the, they observed that the Uber driver picked up a passenger, right. And the first thing that they search for is the passengers belongings. That'd be problematic to me because if I was the defense attorney, I would say, why did you believe there's a fair probability there would be evidence in my client's belongings, based off this prior investigation, like you, your all your indicators are already pointing towards the driver as the culprit for possessing narcotics, why would you just go, and I may or may not win that case. But it's definitely a good question. Right? I wouldn't recommend it. So the officers should first, you know, search the Pat, the Uber driver's belongings, backpack, car, and so forth. Now, during that search, if there's, you know, some facts or circumstances that leave the police lead the police to believe that there could be more evidence in the passage belongings like the passenger knows the driver, and they run the passenger, and he's on paper for narcotics, or he has a criminal history, you know, then, you know, we go from there. Now, if the dog alerts, and we don't know where the prop where the contraband is, you know, is it fair to believe that it could also be in the passenger belongings? I think the answer is yes; I believe that police are going to win that one. Hands down, but I'm just kind of thrown since we have these conversations to move the ball forward. I just wanna let you know that generally speaking, the answer is yes. But why not? Add some context as well? That may be sometimes it may be no. All right. All right. So that's it. Keep the questions coming. Do me a favor. If you liked this video, hit like, please subscribe. Comment below. Share with your friends help me build an audience if you want if you can. I want to reach more cops. Alright, until next time, my friends, stay safe and keep up the great job.

When it comes to law enforcement training, we are the gold standard. Visit bluetogold.com or call 888-579-7796 to learn more about our training books and free webinars. Also, don't forget to like, subscribe and share this channel.

Alright, guys got another question for you for roadside chat. This one is long fact pattern, but I think it's worth it right. This one is the question is determining if a bicycle is stolen based on an alleged victims accusation. So this question comes from an officer in California. And he did a very, very good job give me, you know, a lot of background for this case. And the essence of this case is, you know, is there probable cause? Is there forth an issue, and basically taking an alleged victims word at face value, that somebody has their bike and it's stolen? Right, what not much more. And I think that's a great scenario. So let's let me read the fact pattern. And let me address a few issues. Okay. So a little long, but again, that's why we're here to see what you would do. Alright, so this is what he said, a resident of a neighboring city came to our PD to report that a bicycle was stolen from her home about three days ago. The theft had not been reported to her local PD prior to coming to our PD, very common, right. But she did post a theft on a social media app called next door. The bicycle was an older beach cruiser style bicycle, with a child seat attached to the back. The resident did not have any proof of ownership, such as a purchase receipt or a serial number of the stolen bike. Now, at this point, one question I do have the option for the officer? And I don't know the answer is, is does the resident also have pictures of her, you know, with the with the bike with her kid, you know, on the bike, you know, that would kind of help circumstantially that the bike belonged to her. I'm thinking that she did, I'm gonna assume that she did, because it's going to be pretty hard to ask people to look for a stolen bike, with just some words, you're going to probably want a picture. So let's assume that the victim here has a picture that that's all she has those a picture of her riding the bike or, you know, next to the house and so forth. A few days after the victim posted the stuff on the app, another user on the app posted a picture showing that a male a black male was riding the bicycle, and that the bike matches description that the victim said was stolen, right. So again, I'm assuming as a picture here, if no picture, it's less circumstantial evidence that she owns the bike. According to the person who posted the picture, the male was last seen riding the bike in our city in the top city, behind the shopping center with a transient encampment nearby. Now, the encampment is along the 405 freeway, and the victim requests that the officers check on this area and see if they can locate her bicycle. And also check the area and saw a bicycle matching description. Matching description perfectly. Right. So now, almost now I'm thinking that there is no picture. But anyway, it was tied to a tree inside the cabin. Next to one of the tents about one foot or so from this particular tent, the officer contacted a white male who did not see the other suspect riding the bicycle from the camp...

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

Hey, it's Anthony Bandiero here with Blue to gold law enforcement training. roadside chat from an officer in Nevada. All right, so here's the basis. The idea here is you know, do officers have agency to enter a home based off of a verbal disturbance that verbal domestic so let's say you know, a new officer response to a disturbance call, okay. The neighbors are calling up hey, these guys are going at him. Upon walk him to the door, he or she hear screaming and yelling. You know, coming from inside the house. The officer announces police in the yelling stops. The young officer then knocks on the door but no one answers and can hear people moving inside. The officer is not sure what to do and wait for an additional unit. Okay, that's pretty common should be waiting for additional unit anyway. Right. The new officer relays the information to the senior officer Hey, I heard these guys screaming when I knocked on the door yell police, they stopped screaming. The senior officer decides to make entry to render aid based on the agency to protect an occupant from imminent harm. Would the agency be okay? Now, one of the things like is the agency stale, right, because we waited for the senior officer. Well, first of all, I gotta tell you, you know, just as my personal opinion, and so take it for what it's worth, but I got a little hesitation to begin with, like about why we're even entering this home. I'm personally not seeing the emergency aid exception applicable here. The emergency aid exception allows cops to force entry into a home without consent without a warrant when they believe that there is imminent harm, or violence or render aid. But it seems to me that what we have fundamentally is verbal, and I understand that verbals can escalate into into physical, but I'm not sure courts are going to buy off on that as something as a matter of routine is automatic. Is there anything else? Is there a history of violence at this house? Is that the the the neighbors hear any kind of crashing plates and breaking plates and stuff? Certainly, no throw on the lawn, which could indicate a propensity for physical violence. But I'm just telling you just you know, my opinion here is that if you have a case, and it's purely verbal, you have no evidence. Besides the fact that they're yelling at each other, that someone needs or needs your help in protection. I personally would not be entering that home with those facts. I'm just telling you, because I've seen this more and more with cases because if I was the judge, be like, Okay, where is the eminent? where's the evidence that this person is about to be assaulted physically? People oftentimes get into verbal arguments. I've been in verbal arguments, you know, with my spouse, and you have to, and if police knew that and knew nothing else, would that allow them to force entry into my home? I don't think so. And that's my point. So be careful there. Do you want something more than just verbal? But even if, and by the way, this is not clear. I mean, in no way am I telling this office senior officer that he or she did the wrong thing? By no means am I meaning any disrespect? I'm just saying let's, you know, I'm sure there was a lot more I mean, this thing is a paragraph. I'm sure in the real case, there's a lot more going on. And really, by the way, the officers not really asking about that issue. The officer is asking what the staleness of it. And I'll ask that next. But so just to let you know that, you know, I respect you guys. And I know that there's way more case more and more facts and so forth. And finally, the officers really kind of talking about is there a stillness issue here? ...

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

Hey guys, welcome to another roadside chat. My name is Anthony Bandiero, Senior Legal instructor and Attorney at Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training. This question comes from an officer in California. And he asks whether, if you're executing a search warrant on a cell phone, and let's say the search warrant is for firearm violations, right, you can picture maybe a gang member, a felon, and we believe that we have evidence of fire, you know, that firearm possession on the cell phone. And so the officer is looking through the phone, text messages, Facebook, etc, etc, for firearm violations, but comes across evidence for narcotic sales. Does the officer have to stop searching the phone? And for you know, in order to does it also have to stop and go get a piggyback warrant? Or can the officer still continue to look for firearm violations? And again, see other evidence in plain view for narcotic sales? And will that come in? So the answer is yes, the officer can go down that route. That is an option. Officers are not required to as long as the scope of the search remains within the boundaries of the search warrant. So we're still looking for firearm evidence, then we are good. However, you know, any officer I think acknowledged that the best practice, of course, would be to get a piggyback warrant. But I think you're just asking academically do we have to stop? And to get that warrant? And the answer constitutionally is no. Right? not constitutional. Now, I'm not going to dress any statutory claims. I do not teach statutory law; that is for your prosecutors and for you know, other people can say, you know, but I'm talking about the Constitution, the Constitution would uphold as long as we can prove that the officer did not go outside the bounds of that scope. And really was, you know, now searching for drug evidence and not any longer searching firemen, then we're going to be fine. But at the same time, we know that best practice especially for firearm or for sales, because that's a very serious crime. We may we're gonna want a timeout and just shut the phone down temporarily go get the worn, the piggyback, worn come back, and then specifically search for firearms more firearm evidence and directly search the phone for sales. I hope this helps. Keep your questions coming. Until next time, stay safe.

When it comes to legal training, we're the gold standard. Visit bluetogold.com or Call 888-579-7796 today to purchase the search and seizure Survival Guide, register for a class or learn how to bring our search and seizure training to your agency

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

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training. I'm in beautiful Lafayette, Louisiana teaching at the parish, which is the county. That's what they call it, the County Sheriff's Department. And a question was asked whether or not a driver may consent to search not only the vehicle, right, but also passenger's possessions?

The answer is maybe this is what the law says, Does the officer reasonably believe that the driver has common authority over those passengers' possessions? And common authority comes in three flavors? One, do you reasonably believe they have mutual use, or joint access or control? One of those three, sometimes more than those three, sometimes all of them, for example, married couples, oftentimes, you know, share property, they have mutual use of it, they both use it, they both access it, and they both have a degree of control over it. But in a situation of friends, it gets a little more trickier. So let's say you stop a car. There's a female passenger and a driver, male driver. The male driver gives you consent to search. Can the officer search the purse in the passionate side? The answer be probably not. Because with those facts that I gave you, it doesn't seem reasonable to believe that the driver has common authority over that purse. What about the passenger has a backpack in the backseat? And it's not there's no name on it. And it's just It's back there. And the driver gives consent; the occupants get out, the passenger gets out. And then the officer searches it and finds, let's say, narcotics, that it's then charged against the passenger. Whether or not the driver has common authority depends, again, whether it's reasonable to believe that, that he has some degree of control over the backpack mutual use joint access, if the backpack is in the backseat, and nobody mentioned makes any mention that it's not their backpack. And in what those basic facts, it seems reasonable to believe that the that that the backpack belongs to the driver. And so therefore, the driver would have apparent common authority over the backpack even if later. He it's proven that that was incorrect. That's not what's required under the Fourth Amendment; what's required is reasonableness. So it's it's not actual authority that we have to prove in most states. Its apparent authority. I hope that helps. One way of looking at this, by the way, is I call it the piggyback rule. The piggyback rule is simply saying, Look, if you're going to base your search off of somebody's consent, each item each place searched, has to be something that you reasonably believe that the person giving you consent could have done the same thing without trespassing on anybody's rights. Does that make sense? You know, so for example, if you go to an apartment, and you have two roommates, and one roommate gone, it seems reasonable to believe that the consenting roommate that's in that apartment can give you consent to search to common areas, his room, a shared bathroom, the kitchen, but would not seem reasonable to get consent to search somebody else's room where he does not stay and does not live in. But married couples, it seems reasonable to get consent to search from let's say the wife while the husband is not there to search almost anything in the house because most spouses have unfettered access to the entire house, even if they don't normally look in those places like so, for example, the garage if the wife and Misty, I don't really go in the workshop, and I don't look in the tools, and I don't look in these areas, but you can go search them, most likely that consent to search is going to be upheld as valid because it's reasonably believed that the officers can piggyback off of the wife's consent...