Hey guys, we just ran into a rather "different" interpretation of Wyoming v. Houghton.
Here's the deal:
Consent to search vehicle is granted by the driver, only person in veh. who has standing. Narc detection dog is employed in the event consent is withdrawn mid stream. Both alert and indication is observed. Personal use narcs are found. Subsequent to arrest, a pat down, "Terry", was determined to be in violation of Houghton (only because more narcs were found). There was no "manipulation", a clean erry frisk. Being in the nineth circus (no typo)stuff like this pops up all the time.

Here's the $25,000 question. Even if this is in violation of Houghton, why would this search of a person and its proceeds deemed bueno? I thought that this would be covered under either Carroll or inevitable discovery by virtue of the booking process. Tell me where I'm wrong and what your CA / DA would think of this.

It is not my case so I might be missing a critical detail, I would like some external ideas before I inquire with the legal eagles. G.

The search was based on probable cause, initially, the response from the dog, secondly, finding contraband. Surely there must be more to this story. Inevitable discovery does not really play a role here, as the officer was extending the search, based on the intial response from the dog.

DFrost

After posting a response I refreshed my memory on Wyoming v. Houghton, which I should have done before responding. Anyway, Wyoming v. Houghton was reversed by the USC which held that once probable cause to search has been established,all containers etc can be searched. You can find that opinion at Findlaw, just type in Wyoming v. Houghton. We've never had a problem extending a search of a vehicle, the contents and the persons within, once probable cause was established. I still think there is more to this story.

DFrost

Be so happy you don't work in Pennsylvania....
no plain sniffs here... no searching upon probable cause....no search incident to arrest... we're criminal friendly!

No search incident to arrest? Does that mean you cuff and stuff without searching? If you impound a vehicle you can't do an inventory search? You stop a car, and the driver is smoking a blunt, you can't search the car or passengers for additional evidence? Surely not.

DFrost

An inventory of the vehicle is permitted with written policy and practice.....ie every car towed must be searched. Otherwise...cuff and stuff as you put it! As far as the blunt goes... you would be able to recover the blunt but would have to obtain a search warrant for the rest of the car. The court's mindset is that once the person is removed from the vehicle and arrested, there is no exigent circumstance and the car is not mobile any longer. K-9 can only sniff the exterior of a car for drugs if you have reasonable suspicion...and that's only the exterior. The only thing we have left is consent.

Re: last post, Unbelieveable.