Suppression of evidence in legal proceedings

Suppression of Evidence Hypothetical

The Initial Traffic Stop:

The initial traffic stop was perfectly valid provided only that the factual circumstances justifying it were genuinely believed to be true by the officer (i.e. that the license plate was not visible to him at the time). Even if the officer was honestly mistaken about visibility of the plate, his subjective belief that it was a potential code violation remains a valid justification for the initial traffic stop. Neither Kim nor Terry can challenge the evidence on the basis of the initial traffic stop.

The Search of the Vehicle and Glove Box:

Once the officer contacted the vehicle's occupants, any evidence discovered by the officer that was in plain site (or smell) is admissible, irrespective of the officer's (honestly) mistaken subjective belief as to the probable cause for the initial traffic stop. However, absent specific probable cause of criminal violation permitting the officer to conduct a warrantless search without consent, the officer's search of the vehicle was improper.

The officer could have properly asked for consent to search, even after ascertaining that his initial suspicions about the license plate were unfounded, and even absent any reasonable suspicion about any specific crime. The only requirement for such a search would be that it be given freely; that concept has been defined by the Supreme Court as requiring the officer to first return any documentation or drivers licenses in his possession and only after the subjects understood that they were at liberty to depart the scene of the initial traffic stop before being asked to consent to a vehicle search (Schmalleger, 2008)

In this case, however, it appears that no consent to search the vehicle was ever sought or provided. Therefore, any such evidence (as well as any evidence subsequently derived from it) is excluded as tainted fruit of the poisonous tree (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008). The search of the glove box and the rest of the vehicle was improper; either Kim or Terry may assert this challenge to any evidence discovered that way.

The Canine Search:

In principle, neither subject had any reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) in the air in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle (Schmalleger, 2008; Zalman, 2008). Had the initial traffic stop been conducted by a K-9 unit (or had a K-9 unit happened to have stopped to assist), the K-9 officer could have conducted a standard contraband detection procedure of the outside of the vehicle contemporaneous with the initial traffic stop and officer-subject contact (Schmalleger, 2008; Zalman, 2008).

The Supreme Court has determined that the subjects of a valid traffic stop can only be detained a "reasonable" period of time for the purpose of conducting an external K-9 search and that the reasonableness of the time period is as much a matter of factual context as absolute time (Zalman, 2008). In this case, the officer requested the K-9 unit to the scene after the continued detention of the subjects pursuant to the initial search and recovery of contraband. Therefore, the subsequent search of the vehicle was impermissible and either Kim or Terry may challenge the introduction of the marijuana pipe evidence.

The Search of Terry and Kim's Persons Incident to Arrest:

If the arrest of either subject had been valid, the officer would have been to conduct a complete search of their personal effects and clothing, as well as of the entire vehicle (Friedman, 2005; Schmalleger, 2008). Even without any arrest, the officer could conceivably have conducted an external pat-down or Terry search of the subjects' outer garments to detect any weapons under the doctrine of officer safety (Schmalleger, 2008; Zalman, 2008).

However, even a Terry search would not have permitted to officer to further investigate or search any soft lumps or other contents of pockets not indicative of possession of a plausible weapon (Dershowitz, 2002). Furthermore, absent evidence that Terry and Kim were jointly engaged in criminal conduct, even a valid search of Terry pursuant to a valid arrest that yielded a small amount of marijuana in his pocket would not have justified a separate search of Kim (Schmalleger, 2008).

In this case, the search of both subjects was improper because it was conducted incident to an invalid arrest. Therefore, either Kim or Terry may challenge the introduction of any contraband retrieved from their personal possession.

Evidence of Amphetamine Possession:

Ordinarily, evidence discovered in the glove box pursuant to a validly executed search based on probable cause or voluntary consent is admissible against the owner/operator of the vehicle. In the cases of a vehicle owned by someone other than the driver, evidence discovered through consent to search provided by the driver or a search based on probable cause at the scene is admissible against the driver. The driver may refute his ownership or knowledge of the contraband, but not the manner of its discovery.

However, in this case, the amphetamines were discovered through an impermissible violation of Terry's REP and are, therefore, inadmissible against either Kim or Terry. Had the glove box yielded the same evidence pursuant to a valid search, Kim would be in a better position than Terry because the amphetamines possession would have been imputed to him and not Kim, at least absent any independent evidence connecting it to Kim.

Evidence of Marijuana Paraphernalia Possession:

Ordinarily, evidence properly discovered under the driver's seat would be admissible against the driver because possession would be imputed to him. Likewise, evidence properly discovered under the passenger's seat would be admissible against her. In this case, both Kim and Terry could also have raised the defense involving Terry's non-ownership of the vehicle. However, since the detention of the subjects at the scene after the officer ascertained that his initial concerns about the vehicle's license plate were unfounded, either Kim or Terry may challenge the admissibility of the marijuana pipe.