![]() ![]() The officer asked the defendant if he had been drinking, and received what he believed to be an odd answer: the defendant admitted to having a drink around 4:00 PM however, it was already 5:00 AM when the police officer made this traffic stop. ![]() He also testified that he saw plastic cups in the car, and smelled an odor of alcohol. According to his trial testimony, the police officer stated that the defendant had “very watery” eyes and “disheveled” clothing. The police officer proceeded to stop the car and approached the driver. See also: Right to Counsel: A Look at Defendants Who Cooperate With Police to Obtain Leniency Without Their Attorney Presentįacts: While driving on a roadway, a police officer witnessed a vehicle in front of him cross double lines into a lane of oncoming traffic, swerve in and out of its lane without using a signal, and make a right turn without using a signal. While the police officer believed he had probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI before conducting the pat-down search, the defendant would not have been arrested for possessing a weapon had it not been for the evidence recovered from the search. Holding: The Court of Appeals held that a pat-down search conducted by a police officer, which resulted in him finding a switchblade knife in the defendant’s pocket, was not incident to the defendant’s arrest. The Court discussed whether this specific search was incident to an arrest, and ultimately held that it was not. However, the officer ultimately arrested the driver for possessing a weapon when a search of the driver’s person led the officer to recover a switchblade knife from the driver’s pocket. In this case, a police officer had probable cause to arrest a driver for driving while intoxicated. The “search incident to a lawful arrest,” also known as search incident to arrest, is a legal doctrine that allows police officers to search an arrestee’s person or the area within his immediate control without a search warrant. Summary: This case discussed the search incident to arrest doctrine as first articulated in Chimel v. Issue: Whether a pat-down search that resulted in the recovery of illegal contraband was incident to an arrest when a police officer believed he had probable cause to arrest a driver for one crime, but because of the search, arrested the driver for a different crime. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |