Dust Monkey
New member
Please read the article and lets discuss. As soon as I can, I will post the entire Ruling, but this article sums it up.
My take on this is 2 fold. First thing that comes to mind is the Officer had no reason he could articulate to stop/interact with the individual. None. This is stated in the court record. Second, since the officer had no reason to stop and interact with the individual, anything that was found does not exist under the "Fruit of a Poisonous Tree" doctrine. And the court spanked the Officer for his lack of reasonable suspicion (none) and for violating this individuals 4th Amendment Rights, both state and federal.
Now, is this guy a dirt bag, probably. If you have a meth pipe on your person, you are most likely a user and a waste of skin. But that IS NOT THE ISSUE here. The issue, can a Police Officer, without reasonable suspicion or PC, stop/interact with a citizen just for "fishing" purposes.
We all know about the 4th Amendment, so I wont go into that. But to refresh about the "Fruit of a Poisonous Tree" doctrine, it is supposed to be a firewall against police abuse of power, a deterrent to those inclined to abuse police power. As in do the job right, no short cuts.
Here it is, link and atricle below.
WARNING: I have already notified a Mod about this, so they will be watching. Please lets discuss the merits of this, the decision and the incident. Lets not allow this to spiral into any mud slinging.
DM
http://http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/12/jailed_as_result_of_bulge_in_h.php
Jailed for Bulge in His Pocket, Tri-Cities Man Gets a Reprieve From State Supreme Court
By Rick Anderson in Crime & PunishmentThursday, Dec. 10 2009 @ 10:28AM
Or are you just happy to see me?
Can you be an apparent law-abiding citizen, walking along a city street, and be arrested, essentially, for having a bulge in your pants? Yes, over in Richland, anyway.
That was the outcome of what happened to Dustin Warren Harrington around 11 p.m. Aug.13, 2005. Police Officer Scott Reiber thought Harrington looked suspicious walking through a neighborhood at night. He flipped a U-ey, and asked Harrington if they could talk.
As Reiber later explained somewhat confusingly in court, he "contact[ed]" Harrington because "[t]hat area, late at night, a gentleman walking - social contact. See what he was up to, just to talk."
Reiber asked Harrington where he was coming from. His sister's house, said Harrington, but he didn't know exactly where the house was. That made Reiber suspicious, and Harrington seemed nervous, according to court records.
Reiber then noticed bulges in Harrington's pockets. Reiber also thought it was suspicious that Harrington kept moving his hands in and out of them.
As a state trooper pulled up to assist, the Richland cop asked if he could pat down Harrington for officer safety, explaning he was not under arrest.
Harrington agreed. Reiber then "felt a hard, cylindrical object in Harrington's front right pocket," according to the record.
What's this? asked the cop.
"My glass," said Harrington. "My meth pipe."
Immediately arrested, Harrington was also carrying a baggy of meth, found during the pat down.
Harrington was later convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and appealed, claiming the evidence was seized illegally. The cop, with the trooper backing him up, he said, effectively gestapo-ed him into turning over his incriminating goods.
Today, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed.
"We conclude," says Justice Richard Sanders, who authored today's opinion, "the officers' [cop and trooper] actions, when viewed cumulatively, impermissibly disturbed Harrington's private affairs without authority of law and therefore constituted an unlawful seizure."
Asking someone if you can pat down their body, writes Sanders, "is inconsistent with a mere social contact. If Reiber felt jittery about the bulges in Harrington's pockets, he should have terminated the encounter - which Reiber initiated - and walked back to his patrol car...
"When Reiber requested a frisk, the officers' series of actions matured into a progressive intrusion substantial enough to seize [control of] Harrington. A reasonable person would not have felt free to leave due to the officers' display of authority.
"We note this progressive intrusion, culminating in seizure, runs afoul of the language, purpose, and protections of article I, section 7. Our [state] constitution protects against disturbance of private affairs - a broad concept that encapsulates searches and seizures...
"Article I, section 7 cannot tolerate the officers' progressive intrusion into Harrington's privacy. We reverse the Court of Appeals, suppress the evidence against Harrington, and dismiss."
My take on this is 2 fold. First thing that comes to mind is the Officer had no reason he could articulate to stop/interact with the individual. None. This is stated in the court record. Second, since the officer had no reason to stop and interact with the individual, anything that was found does not exist under the "Fruit of a Poisonous Tree" doctrine. And the court spanked the Officer for his lack of reasonable suspicion (none) and for violating this individuals 4th Amendment Rights, both state and federal.
Now, is this guy a dirt bag, probably. If you have a meth pipe on your person, you are most likely a user and a waste of skin. But that IS NOT THE ISSUE here. The issue, can a Police Officer, without reasonable suspicion or PC, stop/interact with a citizen just for "fishing" purposes.
We all know about the 4th Amendment, so I wont go into that. But to refresh about the "Fruit of a Poisonous Tree" doctrine, it is supposed to be a firewall against police abuse of power, a deterrent to those inclined to abuse police power. As in do the job right, no short cuts.
Here it is, link and atricle below.
WARNING: I have already notified a Mod about this, so they will be watching. Please lets discuss the merits of this, the decision and the incident. Lets not allow this to spiral into any mud slinging.
DM
http://http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/12/jailed_as_result_of_bulge_in_h.php
Jailed for Bulge in His Pocket, Tri-Cities Man Gets a Reprieve From State Supreme Court
By Rick Anderson in Crime & PunishmentThursday, Dec. 10 2009 @ 10:28AM
Or are you just happy to see me?
Can you be an apparent law-abiding citizen, walking along a city street, and be arrested, essentially, for having a bulge in your pants? Yes, over in Richland, anyway.
That was the outcome of what happened to Dustin Warren Harrington around 11 p.m. Aug.13, 2005. Police Officer Scott Reiber thought Harrington looked suspicious walking through a neighborhood at night. He flipped a U-ey, and asked Harrington if they could talk.
As Reiber later explained somewhat confusingly in court, he "contact[ed]" Harrington because "[t]hat area, late at night, a gentleman walking - social contact. See what he was up to, just to talk."
Reiber asked Harrington where he was coming from. His sister's house, said Harrington, but he didn't know exactly where the house was. That made Reiber suspicious, and Harrington seemed nervous, according to court records.
Reiber then noticed bulges in Harrington's pockets. Reiber also thought it was suspicious that Harrington kept moving his hands in and out of them.
As a state trooper pulled up to assist, the Richland cop asked if he could pat down Harrington for officer safety, explaning he was not under arrest.
Harrington agreed. Reiber then "felt a hard, cylindrical object in Harrington's front right pocket," according to the record.
What's this? asked the cop.
"My glass," said Harrington. "My meth pipe."
Immediately arrested, Harrington was also carrying a baggy of meth, found during the pat down.
Harrington was later convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, and appealed, claiming the evidence was seized illegally. The cop, with the trooper backing him up, he said, effectively gestapo-ed him into turning over his incriminating goods.
Today, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed.
"We conclude," says Justice Richard Sanders, who authored today's opinion, "the officers' [cop and trooper] actions, when viewed cumulatively, impermissibly disturbed Harrington's private affairs without authority of law and therefore constituted an unlawful seizure."
Asking someone if you can pat down their body, writes Sanders, "is inconsistent with a mere social contact. If Reiber felt jittery about the bulges in Harrington's pockets, he should have terminated the encounter - which Reiber initiated - and walked back to his patrol car...
"When Reiber requested a frisk, the officers' series of actions matured into a progressive intrusion substantial enough to seize [control of] Harrington. A reasonable person would not have felt free to leave due to the officers' display of authority.
"We note this progressive intrusion, culminating in seizure, runs afoul of the language, purpose, and protections of article I, section 7. Our [state] constitution protects against disturbance of private affairs - a broad concept that encapsulates searches and seizures...
"Article I, section 7 cannot tolerate the officers' progressive intrusion into Harrington's privacy. We reverse the Court of Appeals, suppress the evidence against Harrington, and dismiss."
Last edited: