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 Scotch Plains New Jersey teaching advanced search and seizure. And I'm going to answer a question today that I know a lot of you have on your mind. Can you search a vehicles passenger for marijuana? And the answer is, probably, but I have to go into some, you know, legal reasoning here because the answer is really not that clear. In some regards, this video is probably going to be more than average, I try to keep my videos all under five minutes, this one is probably going to go a little longer. But let me dive right into it. Here's what the Supreme Court has told us about passengers. There's two key cases I want you to know about. Before we dive into a little more discussion about the marijuana issue. One, back in the 1940s, the US Supreme Court said that if you have probable cause for the vehicle, right, that there's something in a vehicle, it doesn't give you automatic right? To search passengers, you have to have a Nexus that just makes sense. If you pull over a vehicle, and let's say it's Uber, and you find drugs on the Uber driver, certainly that would not give you probable cause in and of itself to search some passenger who does not know that Uber driver. The other case, happened 1970s. And what happened there is the officer gave the driver a citation for speeding, and then did a search incident to arrest. Well, the logic here and I do hear cops, you know, saying this, and they're kind of taught this way is that a citation is in lieu of arrest you have you heard that before? Right? It's like, I'm not, I'm kind of like a rescue, but you're going to be free to go. That's an old school language from some court cases, quite frankly, I don't teach it because I see no value in it. If you have even if you have an arrestable offense, let's say a suspended license, and your state allows you to arrest somebody for a suspended license, but you're just going to cite and release them, you get none of the benefits of an arrest, you get no search, you have to be diligent in your time, and so forth. So there's no value in saying it's Aluma. Rest, from our perspective, from the law enforcement, or maybe academically, it's, it's, it's in lieu of arrest, let the prosecutors enjoy that doctrine, if it gives them anything, but for you, it gives you nothing new, they're having arrest or you don't, if you don't have an arrest, it's treated like a Terry stop, even though you're citing the person. All right, now let's move into the marijuana discussion. If you have probable cause, that a passenger has drugs on them, like marijuana,...

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 this week. I'm in Martin County, Florida. And the question I have for you is whether or not officers can go into the backyard when they're serving an arrest warrant and not violate curtilage? And the answer is, yes, officers can do it. And here's why. Now, first of all, the question comes up, because when I talk about curtilage, in my class, I remind the students that from the Supreme Court's perspective, the back yard is typically treated like the home itself. So if you're going to be there, you need a reason you need what I call crew, you need the person's consent, you need a recognized exception or a warrant. There's the crew. Now, here, the recognize exception is the arrest warrant. An arrest warrant gives the officers permission to invade somebody's privacy, in the same manner as if they had a search warrant. Really, an arrest warrant is two things. One, it provides judicial probable cause to arrest somebody, but it also gives the police officer authority to search for that person at their home under three conditions. One, that that do have a valid arrest warrant that this is their house or their domicile, it doesn't necessarily mean that the address you're serving, it has to be on the warrant. But you do have to if there's a any doubts about that, let's say for example, they moved, and you look at DMV records, and you talk to a neighbor, and you talk to their employer, and they're like, yeah, they put this address on their employment application, you're gonna want to explain to the court why you had probable cause that this is now their legal domicile where they live. And then finally, the third ingredient is there, you have reason to believe they are present at the time of execution. One thing I want to kind of guide you on though, is that because going into the backyard is in a sense, like going into the home itself, that third element should be there before you go into the backyard. So for example, you should have a reason to believe that they're presently home before you go into the backyard. The cars in the driveway, the neighbor says they saw them there you see them, and so forth. If you have those elements, you can go into the backyard to serve the arrest warrant for officer safety purposes and so forth in the same manner as if you had a search warrant, which does mean forced entry after following complying with knockin announce. I hope this helps keep the questions coming in. Until next time, stay safe.

When it comes to legal training, we're the gold standard. Visit blue to gold comm 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, and just outside of Cleveland, Ohio. And today's question is, can you run the serial number of a firearm that you are holding during a traffic stop? And the answer is most likely, but there are some caveats I want to go over. So first of all, we do know that if you are lawfully seizing a gun, for example, during a pat-down during a traffic stop, even if some is lawfully concealed carry, and you want to seize that gun during the traffic stop for your safety. Well, that certainly is going to be upheld. That's pretty clear. And then when you have the firearm, normally the firearms serial number is in plain view, you can just look at it. And that's not going to be a search under the Fourth Amendment right to be right to see, that's plain view. But what happens when you are running the gun, and the gun itself has nothing to do with the traffic stop, you know, it's just a safety issue. For example, the traffic stop is for speeding feller to maintain lane and so forth. The next legal question that we have to address is, does the running the gun extend the traffic stop? Because if it does, it could be prohibited under Rodriguez. So let's go through if you're running the firearm, and the serial number is is offered along with the suspects or the driver's license information, so forth, and dispatches gives you all that at one time, that's not usually gonna be an issue because it didn't extend the stop. It's part of the other things that you did it did not measurably extend the stop. So that's that's the first issue benefit. But if it does extend itself, let's say for example, dispatch tells you, hey, look, NCIC has taken a while to get back on this gun. And everything else is, is completed on the traffic stop, and you just waiting, there is an argument that that unrelated investigation is extended stop. And if something is found as a result of that, it's the fruit of the poisonous tree. So keep that in mind, I think courts are going to bend over backwards to give you the tools you need to, to find stolen firearms and so forth. But just keep that in the back your mind at some, at some point it can become extended, it could extend the stop. The next issue is what if the if the serial number is hidden from plain view. So for example, if there's a Hogue grip on the grip, and that certain number is, is underneath those I know, some Rugers have their serial number plates there. And you have to actually remove a grip or you have to remove a firearm part, you know, part of the furniture of the firearm and so forth. That is not playing view, right, that is a search under the Fourth Amendment. And I recommend that if you're going to do that, and be that and be intrusive on the person's firearm, have some reason to give to the court why you believed that run the firearm was reasonable...

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. And I'm outside of Cleveland, Ohio. And today's question is, may officers run a drug dog in apartment or motel hallways? And the answer is yes and no.

Officers can run a drug canine in a motel or hotel hallway, but they cannot run the same dog in an apartment hallway. Usually, these are the most these are the this is the best approach here. And let me explain to you why. Now, first of all, when we are talking about areas outside of the front door, you know, are around a home, motel apartment and so forth. Those areas are classified under one of three categories. First, curtilage, curtilage, is protected, like the home itself. And these are areas intimately associated with domestic life, you know, playing with the kids barbecues, you know, hanging out on lawn chairs, and so forth. And then the second area are areas where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy. And finally, is open fields. So curtilage,

reasonable section of privacy, and open fields. Now let's go let's start with motels. motels don't have curtilage. You know, most motels do not have curtilage. Colleges is more associated with non traditional home, like a tent. But there are areas where the person the occupants have an exclusive right of control over it. If you think about most motels, they cannot exclude anybody from the hallways. This is why or that is why it is not curtilage. Let's go on to reasonable expectation of privacy. Hallways in a motel also are not protected under a reasonable expectation of privacy tests. The main reason is that society does not think it's reasonable. For the for a multiwell a motel occupants to have such a high expectation of privacy, that it would be unreasonable for officers public in canines to be in those hallways, it's just not that type of environment. And if you think about it, that makes sense. motels are certainly like a home inside the motel room when the person is lawfully occupying it. But there's real world consequences and limitations. You know, for example, people can be immediately evicted. If they violate a rule, like smoking and fighting and partying and breaking stuff. You know, that's not true with a home. And it's it's a commercial establishment. So really, hallways are the third category, open fields, let's move on to apartments, apartment hallways are not curtilage. Generally speaking, there is no right of exclusive control, you know, an occupancy over that hallway, other people can access it, they can invite the public. So it's not curtilage. You know, there may be an area in an apartment that is exclusive to one resident, but generally speaking hallways are not. But they are often considered areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reason is, is that most courts find that the apartment dweller, this isn't this is a traditional home, right, clearly, and they want to uphold a higher level of privacy in these areas. In some ways, I think courts feel it's unfair for the traditional home with the white picket fence, and the cops can bring the drug sniffing dog onto that property into the front door. Why should the apartment dwelling dweller have a less expectation of privacy? Will they do because again, hallways are not exclusive. They're not like the front door with a white picket fence. But this is a this is a proper balance.

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 turning, bringing the roadside chat from the studio got an excellent question from an officer from Florida, right, the great state of Florida. So I'm going to call this chat. How do you handle misdemeanor crimes that are not committed in your presence? That's what I want to call this, right. And so the giveaway some context, if I give you this scenario, many states, not all, but many states have a misdemeanor restriction that you can, you can not make an arrest for a misdemeanor, that was not committed in your presence. Now, all of those states that have this restriction also have some rules that have exceptions. So for example, DUI, not coming in your presence, domestic violence, not coming your presence, you can still arrest on those, even though they're misdemeanors, but they still have this common law rule that if you didn't see with your own senses, then you have to go another route. So I want to give some cops some tools to use to address those situations that come up frequently, right. So before I dive in with those tools, let me give you the scenario. I got my computer up in front of me so we can read a little bit. So officers get a call that the victim had or her purse stolen. They arrived 30 minutes later, now they have a suspect description. They see the suspect, you know, a few blocks from the place where this the purse got stolen. Now this purse wasn't as this is not a strong arm robbery. This was simply the lady was on her phone. She's not she's not paying attention that she's an outside cafe. And the guy just comes up and grabs the purse and leaves right so then she realizes a purse is gone. So not a strong arm robbery or theft. Now in Florida, the have a felony? I think it's is it a felony? Yes, I felony is $750 or more in value. The victim says The purse is worth about 450 Not a lot of contents that are worth anything inside the purse. So she's claiming a loss of approximately $45. So we're in the misdemeanor level. Now they also have video of him. You know, behind some bushes, they add a school they go behind the bushes, they find the contents of the they find the person so forth. And here's where we're at, you know, can we make the arrest or not? If we can't make the arrest? What are we supposed to do? Okay, well, let's, let's address a few things

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 into the roadside chat from the studio. Alright, this question comes from an officer in California, all right. So let me just kind of give you the question basically is will a no trespassing sign and they closed gate prohibits you from doing a knock and talk. Alright. So before I kind of go into my feedback here, let me get, let me give you some context here. So deputies in a role setting, they want to do a knock and talk on a burglary suspect. They don't have probable cause to arrest them. Now the suspect lives on a 100 acre ranch. It's fenced barbed wire, the driveway gate is closed, but also to keep the cows in, right. It's a rancher to working ranch, but the gate is not locked. There are several no trespassing sign No Trespassing signs provided near the front gate. about midday, the deputies open the gate drive through and close the gate behind them don't let the animals out. Right. They drive down a mile long driveway to reach a suspects house. And they talk to him. So the officer has two questions. Number one is are we good here on a knock and talk in number two is if if we are or not, you know, if we develop probable cause to arrest him? Can we arrest him? Okay. So whether or not whether or not a knock and talk is lawful, is falls into the Girl Scout rule. Okay, it's it comes from a case called Florida versus Jordan's US Supreme Court. So the Girl Scout rule basically means this do you believe? You know, take the cop part out of it? Right? I know your mission is to find out. But take the car cop part out. Do you believe that the Girl Scouts could do the same thing without offending? This person's raised quantitation of privacy? Right? Or trespassing on his property? Do you

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 Politico law enforcement training, bringing you a roadside chat from the studio. We got a doozy today, this is a question that comes up a lot. I also see it a lot. I'm being very proactive about this particular issue, which is, can police tag an abandoned or junk vehicle? When it's on curtilage? Okay, here is the scenario, I'm looking at my computer here. Right? So there's a new ordinance. This is this comes out of Louisiana, the great state of Louisiana. So this is there's an ordinance that's that, that directs police officers to tag abandoned or junk vehicles on private property without consent without a search warrant. Right, and then order to put give them notice that they got to get the thing out of there. And now the next question, which is not answered by the scenario is okay. Even if officers tag it, and you know, it, it goes nowhere. I guess we're gonna need a warrant to seize it. I don't know. I like to know that. I like to know what the ordinance says about that, too. Alright. So can officers do this? And it also applies to code enforcement and applies to, you know, agents of the government. Right, not just law enforcement. But I would recommend that cops be extremely cautious about this. So here's the first question I have for you. Is the vehicle on curtilage? Or is it on open fields, right? open fields are those areas that a person may own, but they're not protected by the Fourth Amendment. I mean, somebody can own 100 acres, but that 100 Acres is not going to be 100 acres of cartilage, it's going to be maybe an acre of curtilage. I mean, I'm just kind of, I want to see pictures, but of what the land looks like and where the home is, and things that they set up barbecues, lawn furniture, corn Hall. But certainly you can own a lot more land and curl it. So if the vehicle is on curtilage, buyer beware, you're probably going to get burned very bad. curtilage are those areas that are intimately associated with the home, right with family life, they're physically and psychologically associated with domestic life. The backyard is your quintessential curtilage, your carports your side, you know, areas rent your home. And if the car is there, my belief is 100%. Cops cannot be there tagging cars. Now, if the car is in the driveway, I've seen cases go back and forth. But if that portion of the driveway is curtilage, I would not be on it. Why Anthony? It's just the driveway because you don't have the homeowners consent.

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. Let's get right into this. This question comes from California, and the officer is asking about the stale misdemeanor rule. So I guess the question is, is, what is the stale misdemeanor rule? Okay, I'm gonna give you a scenario to apply to, all right. The stale misdemeanor rule is a common law doctrine, that essentially means that if a crime was committed within the officer's presence, and he or she could arrest that person right then and there, right, but yet waits, and doesn't arrest and then arrest sometime down the road, let's say the next day, next week, whatever that makes that arrest. courts have held that that is a stale arrest, it's a still misdemeanor, and the appropriate response is not to arrest them anymore. But to submit a warrant request, or give them a citation and kick them loose. So the first thing is this stale misdemeanor rule is not really alive. And well, in many states. It is a live in California, but it's a very the case all on this doctrine is very limited. And the idea behind it is that, you know, we don't want this threat of arrest, hanging over people's heads that simply commit a misdemeanor and the officer's presence. And then, you know, because you have a year in a day, usually the file, right, the file the charges, we don't want this hanging over the person's head forever. So like, if you saw a person breaching the peace, right, disorderly conduct, let's just go with that disorderly conduct on Saturday, and you go up to them and say, hey, you know, knock it off, right? Or, or you don't do anything? And then you don't, you know, and then the next week, you see the same guy. And you decide just to arrest them for that disorderly conduct happened last week, the courts don't see that being legitimate for a misdemeanor that you didn't arrest for before. Okay, so there it is. It's, it's, again, a very rarely used doctrine in courts. But let's apply it to some facts. So my officer friend here says, Look, cops investigated domestic, right. And the husband is not home, he took off on foot, but we have probable cause. So the officer on that shift, writes a PC declaration for the husband, they handed off to the next shift and say, Hey, you can find them. Here you go, here's the, you know, here's the PC declaration, it's all ready to go. You can book them in the next shift finds them or the next morning, they find him, they then arrest him. Right. And we go to court. Are was that a still misdemeanor?

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. Okay. So here's the question from Texas. The officer says, If I get consent to search a vehicle, does the traffic stop have to end first? Before I can search? And the answer is no. So consent includes with it, the agreement to extend the traffic stop. Does that make sense? So we know that when it comes to traffic stops, you know, the scope of the traffic stop is determined by its mission. Which means why do we stop this person? If we stopped the person for speeding, we have the scope is a speeding investigation, we do not get a free drug investigation, right? So. So that's what it is now. Here, the officer says he actually built up reasonable suspicion for drugs, then asked for consent. And now he's wondering, do I have to stop the traffic stop? And then, you know, ended and then go for the search? And the answer is absolutely not. In fact, that'd be kind of silly, actually. Because if you have reasonable suspicion for drugs, asking for consent is now actually related to the traffic stop, because it concerns what's going on. Um, what you should do is actually put the original reason for the stop on ice. Just if you're writing a ticket, you should probably stop writing that ticket and now diligently pursue what the new issue is right? For drugs and so forth. That's actually what courts would want to see. I've had a there's a case out of Kansas, where the officer had reasonable suspicion pretty early into the traffic stop, did all of the traffic stop. And then, you know, include right in the ticket, all that kind of stuff, and then started pursuing the drug investigation, and then of calling a dog later the core throughout the throughout the evidence, because they're like, hey, look, you were not diligently pursuing your reasonable suspicion. And so that's, that's a great point, put the original reason on ice and then go from there. Okay. If you don't have reasonable suspicion, now, some states require reasonable suspicion before even asking for consent, you know, like Oregon, and so forth. So just think about that. But even if you don't have reasonable suspicion, I mean, the person giving you consent, is, again, consenting to extend the traffic stop here, the officer said, oftentimes, they'll talk to the drivers and ask Is anything any contraband in the vehicle and so forth? And they're like, no, do you want to take a look?..

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. This question comes from an officer in Florida. And he asks, have courts relaxed the manipulation rule? Under Terry pat downs? So what the officers talking about here is a case that's called Minnesota versus Dickerson, US Supreme Court. Basically what happened there were officers patted down Dickerson, they felt an item in his pocket while during the pat down. And they described the path and you know, when they're feeling sad, they described it as manipulating it, feeling it, pinching it, squeezing it, to basically determine whether or not it was drugs, right. And then they felt, you know, that that was a rock like substance. And that combined with all the other circumstances, while the stop was made in the first place, because we thought that drug activity is occurring.

The court, the cops knew that it was, you know, potentially rock cocaine, or at least had probable cause? Don't you want to know it? But you had probable cause? They removed it? Sure enough, they're correct. And we're going to the US Supreme Court. So the US Supreme Court held that in that case, right. The cops manipulation of the item failed to satisfy the playing field doctrine, or the plain touch doctrine, wherever you want to call it. But they did say if while patting somebody down, an officer feels an item that is immediately apparent. Remember that immediately apparent as contraband evidence, fruits or instrumentalities, of a crime and so forth, that they could go into the pocket and seize it. Now, back to the original question, the officer is asking, have courts relaxed this rule? And the answer is no. They're very strict on it. If a cop goes to court, and is asked, at the time that you felt this item in the pocket,

did you believe that it was a weapon or something that could hurt you? And then they in the officer says, No, I knew at that point, that it's not something that can hurt me. Okay. But you continue to feel the item? Yes. And how describe how you felt that item and so forth? Well, I felt that I put my hand in it, you know, I pinched it, I squeezed it...