Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for Blue to gold's got a question from an officer in Arizona. He says, When can I search a vehicle? After I arrest the driver for DUI? Alright, so, you know, we're making some assumptions here that the vehicle is probably not going to be towed. You know, somebody might come on scene and pick it up, or it's gonna be allowed to be parked. And officer wants to know, hey, look, Can I Can I still search it, you know, as incident to arrest? Based on DUI?

Well, you can search cars on a two circumstances, right? I mean, besides inventories, and consent, and so forth, when it comes to these DUIs? Number one is you have probable cause if you have probable cause that there's evidence in the vehicle, you search it. That's the motor vehicle exception. However, there's another way. And it's actually was provided to us by a very pretty famous case called Arizona versus dance. Arizona versus ganz says that you can search a vehicle if you have reason to believe there is a fence related evidence inside the vehicle. Okay, let's, let's parse that out a little bit. First, is this, this reason to believe, is reason to believe a lower or higher standard than probable cause? Well, it's lower, it's close to like reasonable suspicion. That's the first thing so you can actually search the car with less than probable cause. The second component is reason to believe what that there is offense related evidence instead, inside the vehicle. So if you're going to resume for DUI, do you have any reason to believe that offense related evidence can be inside the vehicle? Most of the time, the answer is going to be? Yes. But don't make it automatic. Don't think that, you know, don't go to court and say, Your Honor, if I arrest somebody for DUI, I'm automatically going to search that vehicle. Don't say stuff like that. Say, why would you have a reason to believe that there's something in the car? The key is articulation. They're coming from they're intoxicated and recovering from a friend's house? Well, it's pretty common that people bring BYOB they bring alcohol to people's houses, and then they retain some of it when they leave, right because alcohol is expensive. You know, you know, it's just kind of a it's a common thing. You know, you're cheap. You know, your friend, your friend feeds you some ribs and some burgers. And during leave your your leftover alcohol from the consume later, you cheap bastard. Right? So stuff like that. I another one, you ask the guy he's coming from a bar? Oh, yeah. How much did you have to drink two beers? Well, take him at face value if he really only had two beers. And he is clearly over the limit, by way more than two beers could do now have a reason to believe that there could be alcohol in that car. Think about it. Right? He saved two beers, then how did it get so drunk? He probably is, you know, maybe has opened containers, even though oftentimes these people lie to you about their consumption. But look, you know, he's telling you two beers. Could there be a receipt in the vehicle for a bar tab? The point is, is that you know, you want to you want to have some articulation, but it's but it's great that this is a this is a great lesson for you. There is actually multiple ways to search vehicles. These are just two of them: probably cars, and the Gantt reasons to believe search. So there's your answer. Short, sweet, keep them coming. Do me a favor, guys. Before you exit the door. Hit the like button. Subscribe, please subscribe and maybe do comment if you have time. Alright, until next time, my friends. Stay safe.

Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR.

3:06 Are officers liable if they arrest when prosecutors don't want to file charges?

6:30 Can police search a person with probable cause without arresting them?

19:19 Does drugs on the passenger set police a search of car?

32:35 Suspect running from police throws backpack, can police search it?

38:53 Are police bound by the decisions of other circuit courts?

🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar If you like this video, don’t forget to like and subscribe to our channel for more legal updates!

1:33 Can police compel fingerprints from a detained suspect? 7:51 Using Vapor Wake detection K9"s Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar If you like this video, don’t forget to like and subscribe to our channel for more legal updates!

Good Faith and the 4th Amendment with Attorney Anthony Bandiero

Learn all about community caretaking with police instructor Zach Miller

Are you ready to gain a deep understanding of the standards that apply to lawsuits against officers and supervisors? Join us for an enlightening learning experience that will equip you with the essential knowledge and insights needed to navigate this critical aspect of law enforcement. Stay informed and stay protected against potential legal challenges.

Discover the Answers to Your Questions:

• Explore the existence and scope of the duty to protect individuals from harm. Understand the legal principles and considerations involved, empowering you to fulfill your responsibilities while upholding constitutional rights.

• Gain clarity on when supervisors can be held liable for the constitutional violations committed by their subordinates. Learn the legal criteria and circumstances that can lead to supervisor accountability, ensuring you can effectively manage and supervise your team.

• Uncover the significance of Section 1983 liability and why it is crucial for law enforcement professionals to have a comprehensive understanding of its implications. Grasp the legal framework and its relevance in holding officers accountable for constitutional violations.

• Delve into the concept of qualified immunity, its meaning, and its implications in the context of lawsuits against officers. Understand the legal principles and standards that determine the application of qualified immunity, enabling you to navigate potential legal challenges with confidence.

Don’t miss the opportunity to unlock the knowledge and insights required to navigate lawsuits against officers and supervisors. Register now and empower yourself with the tools to uphold constitutional rights while minimizing legal risks.

Introducing the “Hot and Fresh Pursuit” Course – Your Ultimate Guide to Mastering the Art of Pursuits in Law Enforcement!

Discover the crucial differences between “Hot” and “Fresh” pursuits, and understand the ins and outs of pursuing suspects. With our expert-led training, you’ll gain the knowledge and confidence to navigate pursuits while upholding the highest legal standards and ensuring public safety.

Here’s what you’ll learn:

Distinguishing Hot vs. Fresh Pursuit: Uncover the critical factors that define each pursuit type, empowering you to make informed decisions in the heat of the moment.

Identifying Stale Pursuit Criteria: Learn the telltale signs that indicate a pursuit may have gone cold, enabling you to assess when to adjust your approach and keep the chase alive.

Entering a Suspect’s Home under Fresh Pursuit: Understand the legalities surrounding fresh pursuit into a suspect’s residence, providing you with the tools to safely pursue justice within the boundaries of the law.

Don’t miss this incredible opportunity to enhance your pursuit expertise while ensuring the safety and well-being of both yourself and the public you serve. Enroll now in the “Hot and Fresh Pursuit” course and be on the fast track to becoming a pursuit master!

Are you ready to acquire the knowledge and expertise required to lawfully deploy a K9 unit, with or without reasonable suspicion? Look no further! Our comprehensive course is designed to equip you with the essential skills needed to navigate the intricacies of K9 deployment in law enforcement.

Discover the Answers to Your Questions:

Unveil the secrets behind the “free air sniff” technique. Understand its purpose, legal implications, and how it can be lawfully utilized in the field.

Explore the parameters for deploying drug K9s in motels, apartments, and homes. Gain clarity on the legal considerations and best practices associated with each scenario, equipping you to make informed decisions in real-life situations.

Learn effective techniques for calling a K9 without unnecessarily extending a traffic stop. Discover the strategies and protocols that enable seamless integration of K9 units.

Understand the implications if a K9 touches a vehicle before indicating an alert. Grasp the legal framework surrounding this scenario and learn how to appropriately handle such situations while maintaining lawful practices.

Explore the permissible duration for detaining occupants to call a K9 to the scene. Gain a comprehensive understanding of the legal boundaries and ensure compliance while leveraging the capabilities of K9 units.

Enroll today to embark on a transformative learning journey! Don’t miss the opportunity to master the art of K9 deployment, register today!

Introducing the Ultimate Trespass Law Training Course!

Are you a law enforcement officer looking to enhance your expertise in dealing with trespassing incidents? Look no further! Our cutting-edge course is specifically designed to equip officers like you with the knowledge and skills needed to tackle one of the most investigated violations: trespassing. Unlock the secrets of effective law enforcement with our comprehensive training program. We dive deep into the intricacies of trespass laws, examining relevant caselaw to provide you with a solid understanding of the subject matter. By delving into real-life cases, we ensure that you are armed with the most up-to-date information, empowering you to make informed decisions on the field.

But that’s not all! We go beyond mere theoretical knowledge by exploring practical scenarios and best practices. You’ll learn when and how to enforce trespass laws, initiate an investigatory detention, or even make an arrest. Our goal is to equip you with the tools you need to handle any trespassing situation confidently and efficiently.

Here’s a taste of what you can expect to learn:

1. Warning or No Warning: Discover the ins and outs of whether a person must be warned before they can be trespassed. Gain clarity on this often-debated topic, ensuring you’re fully informed about the legal requirements.

2. Policing on Behalf of Businesses: Uncover the precise circumstances under which law enforcement may trespass individuals on behalf of a business. Learn the nuances and legal considerations that come into play, allowing you to navigate this complex area with ease.

3. Ignoring Business Signs: Explore the fascinating realm of business signs and their implications on trespassing. Find out if disregarding signs, such as those prohibiting firearms, constitutes per se trespassing, and understand the legal ramifications involved.

Don’t miss this opportunity to become a master of trespass law enforcement! Join our course today and gain the knowledge and confidence needed to excel in your profession. Take the first step towards becoming an authority on trespassing incidents and ensuring a safer, more secure community.

Enroll now and elevate your law enforcement skills to new heights!

Join Anthony Bandiero as he discusses what are the major blind spots and pitfalls facing law enforcement today.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing the roadside chat from a cop. In Utah, the cop asked me something that's actually a base in statutory law, but has a search and seizure component. The officer says, Can you arrest someone for DUI? If you did not see them in actual physical control of the vehicle? Alright.

So the answer is it depends on your state law, because DUI statutes come in two flavors, what are both? What are they have both. One is that the statute requires that the person be driving at the time of contact, or, and or they be in actual physical control, which is where you can prove circumstantially that they were driving the vehicle previously. Now, most states in my experience, allow both right? You the person's driving, right? Which obviously, implies that they're an actual physical 12 That time, or you can also prove circumstantially that they were driving the vehicle in the past that is most common with accidents, right? You show up on an accident scene, and the person's not in the vehicle? How do you prove that they drove? They're intoxicated. That's circumstantial evidence. You can also have direct evidence by them making admissions and so forth, but usually gonna have to have something more than just the admission that they drove the vehicle. So let me give you the the hypo or the hypothetical here, right. So the officer gets a report of an erratic driver. Apparently, many phone many calls on this. He was also reported be all over the roadway. He had traffic cones, he ran people off the roadway, we're looking at a possible DUI. They have the plate, they run it, and they find the vehicle is parked at the residence unoccupied. 10 minutes later, they knock on the door. The driver says, Yeah, I came from that area, right. He makes admissions that he was in the area of where the traffic cones and people ran up the road. But he tells the cops that he drank alcohol since then at home. Now the officer saying in his training experience, there's no way he could have got that intoxicated within the 10 minutes, meaning most people don't drink that heavily within the last 10 minutes, and so forth. Now, the question ultimate question again is, can we arrest this person? ...

Join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. Check the calendar to sign up for free ➜ https://www.bluetogold.com/calendar If you like this video, don’t forget to like and subscribe to our channel for more legal updates!

2:47 Use of force with Michael Brave, using force against subject just holding a gun

12:20 Running a check on an ID voluntarily given

15:44 Asking passenger for ID with noise complaint

20:30 Firefighters finding drugs, turning over to police

28:55 Asking suspect for the drugs after seeing hand to hand transaction

33:00 Trespassing, and searching backpack for stolen property

40:43 Did driver abandon a rental car?

0:00 Arresting a person on their curtilage

3:15 Arguable Probable Cause

10:28 Stop Sticks for a passed out driver

16:23 Consent to search from arrested subject

21:39 Using drones for traffic enforcement

27:00 Can cops do a R.S. traffic stop?

39:30 Can police demand motel turn over guest registry?

Join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. Check the calendar to sign up for free ➜ https://www.bluetogold.com/calendar If you like this video, don’t forget to like and subscribe to our channel for more legal updates!

Join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. Check the calendar to sign up for free ➜ https://www.bluetogold.com/calendar If you like this video, don’t forget to like and subscribe to our channel for more legal updates! — 🚨 Have a search and seizure question in mind? Send it here and have it answered by Anthony: https://www.bluetogold.com/show

Ready to discover the key to crafting solid case law by applying the three golden rules of search and seizure? Look no further! Our comprehensive course is designed to equip you with the essential knowledge and skills to excel in this critical aspect of law enforcement.

Get Ready to Have Your Questions Answered:

Delve into the historical significance of why the Founding Fathers passed the Fourth Amendment. Understand the principles and intentions behind this crucial constitutional protection, empowering you to uphold justice with confidence.

Learn why articulation is paramount in case law. Discover the importance of clear and concise communication, enabling you to effectively present your legal justifications and navigate complex legal terrain with ease.

Explore whether the rules change when police are dealing with more serious crimes. Understand the implications and legal considerations involved, ensuring you have the knowledge to handle high-stakes situations with precision.

Uncover the nuances surrounding warrantless searches and how the rules may differ. Gain a comprehensive understanding of the legal framework, empowering you to make informed decisions while adhering to lawful practices.

Join our training and gain invaluable insights into crafting good case law by applying the three golden rules of search and seizure.

Curious about the unique Fourth Amendment complexities that arise in airport and border settings? Look no further! Our course is designed to shed light on various search and seizure issues encountered during travel.

Get ready to have your questions answered:

Demystify the Border Search Doctrine: Understand the intricacies of the border search doctrine and how it applies in real-world scenarios.

Explore the conditions under which law enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) work together. Uncover the intricate dynamics of this collaboration, ensuring you understand the boundaries and guidelines governing their cooperation.

Dive into the concept of “consent” when passengers submit themselves for screening. Examine whether this act truly falls under the realm of consent or is governed by a different legal doctrine, unraveling the complexities of passenger screening procedures.

Learn at what point a passenger can exercise their right to turn around and leave the security checkpoint. Understand the nuances of this decision and the legal implications involved.

Our expert-led course will provide you with invaluable insights, ensuring you’re well-equipped to navigate the intricate landscape of search and seizure issues in travel.

Searching containers can present unique challenges for law enforcement officers. Understanding the nuances of the “cat out of the bag exception” is crucial to navigating this complex area of search and seizure law. Join us in our insightful webinar as we unravel the intricacies of searching containers and delve into the depths of “cat out of the bag searches.”

Key Questions Addressed:

1. Private Search vs. Government Search: Explore the factors that determine when a private search becomes a government search.

2. Utilizing Evidence from Private Individuals: Delve into the complexities surrounding evidence discovered by private individuals engaged in illegal activities. Understand the circumstances under which law enforcement can utilize such evidence in their investigations.

3. Restrictions on Private Searches: Uncover the two major restrictions that govern private searches. Learn about the legal boundaries that apply to individuals conducting searches and the implications for law enforcement when it comes to obtaining and utilizing evidence obtained through private searches.

4. Illegally Obtained Evidence and Search Warrants: Examine the crucial question of whether illegally obtained evidence can be used in a search warrant. Gain insights into the legal precedents and considerations that govern the admissibility of such evidence, ensuring you stay within the confines of the law while pursuing justice.

Enroll today to broaden your expertise and become a master in searching containers under the “cat out of the bag”.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Supreme Court has held that Fourth Amendment protection is often incompatible with the concept of incarceration and the needs and objectives of penal institutions. However, when a jail inmate has not been convicted, they do not lose all of their rights. On the other hand, prison inmates have been convicted and the usually have no Fourth Amendment rights. Some questions that this webinar will answer is:

• What Fourth Amendment rights exist in a jail and prison?
• When do Miranda warnings apply?
• When and how may inmates have private communications?

Are you a law enforcement professional eager to enhance your skills and expertise in detaining suspects, conducting patdowns, and mastering the art of plain feel? Look no further! Our exclusive webinar is specifically tailored to equip officers like you with the knowledge and techniques needed to excel in these crucial areas of law enforcement.

Questions Answered: Ever wondered what “reasonable suspicion” truly entails? Curious about the fine line between a hunch and reasonable suspicion? Curious whether an anonymous tip can support a detention? Our webinar tackles these questions and provides you with comprehensive, expert answers, ensuring you have the knowledge and confidence to make informed decisions in the field.

Enroll now and gain the competitive edge that will set you apart from the rest. Elevate your skills, boost your confidence, and make a lasting impact in the field of law enforcement. Register today!

Are you a law enforcement professional or a private sector investigator looking to enhance your investigative interviewing skills? Don’t miss this opportunity! Join us for an engaging one-hour webinar where our IADLEST National Certified Instructor, Joe Auriemma, will introduce you to our comprehensive training programs designed to elevate your interviewing techniques.

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 a roadside chat. This question comes from an officer in Colorado. And the question is, can police search a shoplifting suspects purse for evidence without making an arrest?

And the answer is going to be yes. Definitely, as far as yes, in Colorado, but I believe the answer is yes, everywhere. But let's go through this. Now. Generally speaking, if you have probable cause for somebody, right, and you search them, and you find evidence and you arrest them, Most courts are going to call that a search incident to arrest but Anthony, the search came before the rest that didn't come incident to well, the supreme court requires that the search be contemporaneous, which courts have interpreted to be either right before or right after, you know, generally speaking, however, when you're not going to make an arrest, the PC search is generally authorized under exigency, right? Because when you stop out somebody do you really have you have probable cause that they have evidence they're going to cite and release them or whatever. Do you really have enough time under the circumstances to go get the warrant? Probably not most horses just fight on their agency. And here's the background. So got this batch to $1 General stain that they caught something you know, they saw something stealing makeup and putting in a purse now first of all, we know we got a classy girl, you know, I'm saying if you got a suspect who's stealing makeup from the Dollar General. Ah, that's gonna be a that's a good looking lady right there. Okay, look, she's gonna look like a clown after she puts that makeup on. But I digress at least be a little more bougie. You know, I'm saying like my wife, and you know, get it at least from Walmart. Or if you're really nice, Tarjay. But I can, I will continue. They knew she put in her purse. ...

Join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. Check the calendar to sign up for free ➜ https://www.bluetogold.com 1:00 Can police detain for out of state felonies? 8:12 State of Idaho V. Bell 22:29 ID'ing passengers with smell of burnt weed in vehicle 27:00 Can Mirandized suspects be asked for consent to search cell phone? 32:00 Can cops come back and search car after taking suspect to jail?

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training. i This question comes from an officer in Colorado basically, the officer saying, Can I force a passenger to keep his backpack in a car before I start searching it under probable cause? Right? And the answer is yes, absolutely. Under a case called us versus Ross, if a police officer has probable cause to search a vehicle, they get to conduct a search in the same manner as if they have a warrant. So if, if they if the police believe that that backpack could contain the evidence, then they get to search it, right. And there's also another case out there, I think it's Wyoming versus hufton. Might be often that but somebody in the comments can probably correct me if I'm wrong. But that's another case where the Supreme Court has held that if cops have probable cause for a vehicle, they get to search containers, including those belonging to passengers, again, if they reasonably believe the contraband could be found in that location. So straightforward question. straightforward answer for once. Okay, I hope that helps. Guys. Before you, you leave, please hit like, subscribe, leave a comment, share with your friends. And before until next time, my friends stay safe and keep keep up the great job you doing.

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney and senior legal instructor for blue to gold Law enforcement and training during the roadside chat. All right, this question where's this officer read me see if it says it actually doesn't say because it came from a personal email, but no problem. Alright, this officer asks, Can police force a GSR test on someone who doesn't want their hat or their hand swapped. And a GSR test for the non-police watchers here is a gunshot residue test. So basically, you know, the Q tip type stuff to see if there's gunshot residue on their hand, which would indicate that they're the ones that fired the firearm? And the answer is yes. And here's why. So first of all, I want to kind of bring my book into the mix here. The search and seizures valve guide, best selling search and seizure book in America. Please check it out. It's on Amazon. It's also on our website bluetogold.com , just click on store and you'll see all the products that we have for you folks that do your job constitutionally. And the it's not directly on the GSR, but it is under a topic called fingernail scrapes. But it's the same kind of constitutional principle. And this issue actually went to the US Supreme Court in 1973. So it happened is a guy named I think his name was cup. But he went into to have an interview with police about the death of his wife. Now the police suspected that he was the perpetrator, he actually killed his wife. And he was saying no, was it me, you know, this is what happened. And so somebody else did it and so forth. Well, while talking to him, he you know, he made some emissions they had they actually had probable cause for him. And they looked at his fingernails, and they saw that there was debris, right blood and skin tissue, maybe even some material fabric material under his fingernails. And the wife was strangled, and so forth. And they then forced him, they forced the scrape of his fingernails, and they sent it to the lab. And that material under his fingernails was from her dress. And it was like DNA, if I got my facts straight. It's been a while since I've read the case. But the point was, was that evidence was used to convict him. Now the husband went to the US Supreme Court and said, Hey, that was an intrusion that you didn't have a warrant, and so forth. And the Supreme Court upheld it. Right, that this was, you know, basically, you know, where there was probable cause. It was they considered a limited intrusion. Right? It's not that intrusive. It's not like a cavity search, right? It's not that intrusive. And it was readily destructible. Right? The destructibility of it. So there is that that agency that kind of exists as well. So if he's not complying, if he's not, you know, cooperating and you know, he's holding his hands and so forth. Can you do a forced GSR swap? I would say the answer is yes. Especially if he's not being cooperative, because what is he going to try to do? While you're, if you're going to go the warrant route, if he's being non-compliant,..

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here attorney, Senior Legal instructor for blue to gold law enforcement training.

Now the roadside chat from an officer question comes from an officer in Florida. And basically I think comes down says, Can you clarify protective sweeps at murder scenes? All right. Here's what my officer says. I watched a, you know your video regarding protective sweeps where you referenced a case called Mincy versus Arizona a 1978. Case. I'll give you a little background in a second, where there is no murder scene exception, you know, under the Fourth Amendment, so if respond to report, it's shooting in a driveway of a residence, wouldn't we have exigent circumstances to conduct a warrantless sweep of the residence for possibly other injured parties or to see if the perpetrator was still on scene? In similar fashion, we typically follow the path of the bullet trajectory to ensure no one else was hit, similar to a public safety statement type of issue, right? How many shots did you fire, what direction and so forth? Alright. So in order to understand where my officers coming from, we got to understand what I said before. So under that Minsi case, your police are not allowed to search a to basically process a crime scene in Mincy. Very unfortunately, an officer got killed during an undercover operation. The officers then you know, came in, you know, they rested man. So he actually got shot as well, but he survived. The officers then spent four days processing the crime scene. without consent, right. mincey was not asked, nor did he give his consent, and the officers did not get a warrant. Now, the Supreme Court suppressed a lot of the evidence that was obtained during that search of his of menses residence. Why? Because the Supreme Court said, Look, we understand that this is a serious crime, it's a murder of a police officer. However, there is no murder scene exception, you don't you don't get around the Fourth Amendment warm requirements simply because you have a murder or a very serious crime. Okay. Now, with that in mind, that does not apply to what the officer is talking about here, these protector sweeps, there's totally different Minsi is about one thing, it's about processing crime scenes, it's about the luminol. It's about the strings in this the sticks through the holes to see trajectories, it's about blood splatter, you know, analysis and see, basically, it's about CSI coming in on the scene, and getting trace evidence and stuff. It has nothing to do with two things. Number one, as partner here, number one is any kind of plain view evidence. See if the officers sweep up, you know, let's do a protective sweep of the murder scene to make sure there are no victims, and then they see a gun in plain view, they can absolutely if they want seize that gun under plain view that that guns coming in, they can seize a knife with blood on it. Now many cops are just gonna leave it there. And let's see OSI do that, or the tech does and so forth. And that's fine, too. But the point is, it has nothing to do with these plain view seizures as long as the cops were lawfully present, which brings me to my next point, the protective sweeps Mincy does not prohibit protect sweeps when you reasonably believe more victims or the perpetrator could be inside the house. Therefore, if officers arrive at a crime scene where there is a shooting, and they reasonably believe, and I think most of the time, they are going to believe this that the location of the shooting and where the that the suspect could have retreated into the home. And he could still be in there. But you know, cops can go in there and sweep it and to take him into custody or you know, to detain him and so forth...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for Blue to Gold get a roadside chat question from a cop in, in Texas. And basically the COP is asking, Hey, if my reasonable suspicion has been dispelled, can I still run the person for once before I let them go? And here's kind of like a fact pattern. So the officer conducts a reasonable suspicion stop on a motor vehicle, because the insurance is unconfirmed. Okay, so far, so good. Right? The driver presents the insurance at the window. So the driver presents insurance? And is the tropics is the traffic stop over? Is the officer still allowed to conduct a warrant check, and so forth? In check their license? Well, okay. So here's the question for the court. If the reasonable suspicion is over, if that piece of paper is enough documentation for you to believe that the person has insurance, and, you know, if they have insurance, and then it's over, the running of warrants check, or checking their license is not related to the reasonable suspicion. And that's the problem here. Now, if the officer says, Hey, look at my training experience, you know, if it comes back with no insurance, our, you know, our databases are in sync, insurance talks to the insurance companies, there's there still may be a problem with the insurance, maybe we can start doing some more investigation. But if this is a reasonable suspicion stop, you don't get the latitude that you normally get with probable cause stops, see with a probable cause, stop for speeding lane change, and so forth. You get to do those things reason related to conduct that investigation, like running people for wants, and so forth. But with Terry stops, they're much more, much more narrow. And that's the problem here. There is a case and I forget the name, if you ask me for it, I'll throw it into the comments. But there is a case out of Nevada, really about this issue. The the officer believed that a suspect was underage violating curfew, stopped out with him, asked for his ID. And he provided a California ID that showed that he was an adult. But instead of letting him go, the officer random for once came back with a warrant found the gun in a backpack. And the court found that that was unlawful over the tension. And I have to agree. Because if the person provides you an ID that looks legitimate, it is valid, it is not expired, it doesn't look fake, it has the hologram, the picture doesn't look wonky, like it's you know, a, you know, you know, homemade and so forth. Right, then the warrants, check has nothing to do with the crime at issue. You did not stop him because you believed he's wanted. You stop them because you believe that he was underage. And he proved that he was over age, you know, to a fair, you know, I mean, nothing's perfect. They also said, Well, I want to just make sure because a lot of IDs are fake. Well, you're gonna have to something more than that. Just begin making that assumption. I mean, does the Id look fake at all to you? Is he acting, you know, does it look like him in the picture? And that's the kind of the idea here. So that's the case, I have the backup. What I'm saying here, you certainly there's a case out of Illinois where the officer stopped, the person thought there was a registration violation, determine that there wasn't. And before releasing them simply asked him, Hey, can I see your license before you leave? And the person says, Why don't I don't have a license?...

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. Bring another roadside chat. This one comes from an officer in California. One of my favorite agencies actually, he's a chippy. And I love it I love Calvin hire patrols is a very fine organization in my book. But on topic here, the officer says basically, can an officer reach in slightly into a person's home to pull them out and arrest them? If they have probable cause, but no arrest warrant, right? So let's go over the fact pattern here. So an officer has probable cause, and the person opens up the door, they're talking to the officer, and the suspect is just you know, just an inch inside his house. Right? He's right next to the threshold, essentially, would it be a constitutional violation to reach in there and actually pull this guy out? With just the probable cause alone? No consent, no agency, no arrest warrant? Well, to answer that question, let's go over a few cases. Number one is, we do know that the threshold of a house is the bright line rule of where a person can be arrested. Under Supreme Court precedents, this case is called us versus Santana. And Santana was standing in our doorway when she was placed under arrest. And she ran to her house, the cops filed, they arrested her, you know, evidence was found, during the arrest in the Supreme Court basically held that that is the point of the demarcation line. So one foot forward, Santana's on our porch, one foot back, she's inside the house. So if you're in the doorframe, which is called the threshold, then the person can be arrested under the Fourth Amendment. Now, we don't have any cases from the US Supreme Court about pulling people out of their home. But we do have some cases about related issues involving the home. And I think it's very clear to me at least that the US Supreme Court would not uphold any intrusion into the home to pull somebody out to arrest them unless you had an arrest warrant exigency, or you know, their consent, right? Hey, come on out, you know, when you come out, right. So to support this position, let me read you a case from the 11th circuit. I actually, I'm just trying to actually find an I apologize, but I just realized that I have the citation, but not the name of the case, I'll give you a citation. It is a four a three, f dot 3d 1231. It's the 11th circuit 2007. So basically, what the court has said here is that there was an officer standing on the porch. And he reached into the suspects residence and pulled him out of the door and arrested him. Now, the suspects say that he was behind the threshold of the door completely in his residence. And the court found that going into his home and pulling them out violate the Fourth Amendment, because he didn't have a warrant, consent or Asian circumstances. And they also cite a US Supreme Court case called Kylo. Kylo is a case involving heat imaging using a heat thermal imaging on a home, and they found that that violated the Fourth Amendment. And they found in that court, they said that the bottom line is that unless a warrant is obtained or agency and so forth, any physical invasion of the structures of the home by even a fraction of an inch is too much. And that's what I teach my classes. So some cops have Anthony. What if his hand is on the threshold? Can I grab his hand and pull him out? And I say, I don't know because I've never seen a case like that. However, I will tell you that I would never do it. It's just not in the spirit of Santana. Right? I mean, I say never do it. If I if it was a really serious case, I probably would have exigency, but it's not in the spirit of Santana, to me spent 10 Santana was like the person was, you know, kind of in their doorway, kind of like leaning on the doorframe...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here attorney, Senior Legal instructor letter roadside chat. And our question comes an officer from Texas.

Can a person in police custody provide consent to search without violating Miranda?

The answer is yes. Here's why. Miranda only applies for the three conditions. The person is in arrest like custody. One. Number two, the officer is asking questions, which is foreseeable that they would that the answers would incriminate the person? Right? To the right. And number three, we're talking to a known officer that the suspect knows he's talking to a police officer versus an undercover agent. Well, we're missing something here. If Okay, we have in custody arrest like casies Actually backup I didn't, I didn't tell you the fact pattern. So I let me let me tell you with an officer stops a suspicious male in a parking lot, who was stumbling all over the place appearing heavily intoxicated, they meet the criteria for a public intoxication arrest. So the male was placed in handcuffs. And in the patrol vehicle, I've removed from his pockets, right for his consent, so forth. You know, this is just a, again, a public intoxication almost like for, we're almost like community caretaking, we're trying to help this person, you know, not get hit by a car and so forth. The officer then asked for consent to search those items. Now. I understand. And he and the cop understands, too, that this is probably gonna be justified under a search incident to arrest. But the officer wants to go beyond this. You know, he did ask this person for consent without reading memoranda. And he's under arrest in the back of a police car. Is that consent valid? I mean, there's the fact that he does not have Miranda invalidated. And the answer is no. Because consent is not something likely to incriminate himself. You're not it's not an interrogation. Asking a person Hey, wait, can I can I search your car? Can I search your backpack, even though they're under arrest, and you have no right to search those things, is not incriminating. It's not interrogation. That's why Miranda is not required. Further, there was a US Supreme Court case on this issue. It's called us vs. Watson like 1976. Were the awkward the suspect was in the back of police car in handcuffs under arrest, that he had nothing to do with it. He was not arrested from his vehicle. He was arrested from a restaurant. And the police asked for consent to search his vehicle. And he said yes. And based off Italian circumstances the court upheld and even though no Miranda was provided. Now sometimes giving Miranda will help, you know, just kind of show that he has rights and it's less coalhurst coercive, but the point is is not required. And that and that is why all right. All right. Keep the questions coming. I love them and hopefully you're enjoying this channel too. We're getting more people you know, you know this thing is it's one of those things where you build up an audience and it starts off slow for every subscriber you work really hard for but then start exponentially starts building up people start sharing them and you hit the subscribe button guy and hit the like button. If you liked what I'm doing here. Thank you, right. I appreciate it. Alright guys, see you next time.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here attorney, Senior Legal instructor bringing a roadside chat from an officer in Texas. Now, this officer says, you know, ask basically can we automatically pat down suspected gang members? Right? And to give you a little context here, the officer is talking about, you know, attending some outlaw motorcycle gang training, and, you know, get a lot of bad deals in the area. And then instructors basically saying, hey, look, if you are dealing with a one percenter, right? Michigan versus long, which is a US Supreme Court case, about first can vehicles allows you to essentially, you know, conducted frisk of that motorcycle for for weapons. The officer will first ask, though, this is what they teach, they'll ask for consent to search the motorcycle, if they say no, then they get them off the bike. And they search it anyway. Because of their because they're, it's known that gang members can easily access the saddlebag these game members can access to settle back and potentially grab a weapon. Now, the question is, is does Michigan versus long really hold that that suspect a gang members, you know, essentially can be automatically patted down just with that fact alone. And certainly, Michigan versus long doesn't it's not that fact pattern that's that case involved a drunk driver who crashed into a ditch and the officer saw him trying to go back to the car, it was a knife in the in the mat pocket in the door, if the door is open, you got you know, long back and another partner looked for sees the knife and look for more weapons in the immediate area, and found narcotics in the center console and the Supreme Court upheld it because the logic was, hey, look, he was trying to go back to the vehicle. It's, you know, it's a fluid situation, he's intoxicated, there was only one weapon in there, that could potentially be another weapon in there. And that frisk of the vehicles upheld, but it certainly didn't talk about anything about gang members. Now. All I can tell you is what I teach, right? I don't teach automatics like, you know, automatic searches, you know, for my cops. There's really no automatics out there. There's no free lunch when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, you're going to have to work for it a little bit, you're gonna have to go to court and explain that simply having a 1% patch. You know, that's one factor. It's a very important factor and, and but what else do you got there? I mean, you know, we're gonna have to have something more. And usually there's going to be so that's the good news. Here are some cases that kind of, you know, illustrate what I'm talking about, right. Here's a case out of Kansas, a case called State vs. Goldston. 2009. Now it says here at the time that the officer conducted the pat-down, he knew the following facts about the suspect. He was in a database as a documented gang member. He was with a known gang member who was on supervised release from prison and had been involved in prior stop involving drugs within the last two weeks. He had just come from a city known for drug activity, and were several arrests and or area of town. Actually, I think, I'm sorry, it's not a city. It was a gas station. He just came from a gas station where several rest of them made recently for drug activities and so forth. The officer also articulated he knew that drug dealers that involved in gangs often had weapons to protect the drugs and the money. Right. They're self help, right? They're like their own little police department. And considering all these facts, the court upheld, but do you see what's going on there? It's not just saying Your Honor. The person is a one percenter therefore, I conducted a vehicle suite, you know, or pat down. We need something more than that in mind book, but you're gonna have it usually...

Search & Seizure Show | Volume VIII | July 09, 2024 Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, Anthony Bandiero Here attorney, Senior Legal instructor for Blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing to the roadside chat from Joplin, Missouri. What a great place, by the way, my first time here, and it won't be my last. All right. So I have a question for Nasir. He actually doesn't say what state he's from. And his email addresses personal email address, but that's okay. And he wants clarification on detaining someone who committed a crime. But the victim doesn't want to press any charges. And then they want to know about, you know, can we still detain him, identify him, try to find out what his story is, and so forth. So this situation is this, they responded to a suspicious person called, of unknown subject, knocking on a door that doesn't belong there. As he left, he broke a vase that was on the patio, you know, that can just imagine this guy just like, something's wrong with him. He just like, smacks his face and it just breaks, right? They can they contacted the homeowner, right? And she says, Look, I don't want anything done, right? I'm not going to be a victim here, and just let it go. I want nothing to do with it. So they then leave? Well, they then see him walking down the street. And they considering a consensual contact. You know, since the victim doesn't want anything done, but the officer is asking, you know, let's say he doesn't want to engage in a consensual contact, can we actually detain him? Right? And investigate? And here's my answer. I think the answer is no, I don't really have a case on this. I've never seen a case on this. But I think jelly answer's no. Because look, if you look at the tensions, what are they for, they're supposed to be for conforming or dispelling whether criminal activity is afoot, right? criminal activities ongoing. So we basically have no victim no crime. That's kind of the way I'm looking at this right? You have a person who's saying, I don't want to make this a criminal issue, right? This is gonna be a wash for me. So you don't have that? You. You also don't have. And again, I'm spitballing here because there could be a case out there that that says, yeah, actually, we can still contact him and so forth. I'll tell you one of potential what I think we could do but wait for it. And then also, we don't have probable cause, either, because we have no, you know, we don't have enough evidence, because we have no victim that doesn't want to make this a crime. We don't have evidence that the person at this point has engaged as committed a crime, because again, you got this no victim, no crime kind of idea. So I would say no, I would not detain this person; if they don't want to talk, they can keep on walking. Here's the caveat. If the officer has facts or circumstances that lead him or her to reasonably believe that this person will commit a future crime, right, that this person, you know, maybe we saw him going up to other people's houses and knocking on the door. I'm definitely good on that point. I'm definitely good with a detention at that point. Because it looks like he's going from house to house and he could be breaking more stuff in plus, what is he really up to? ...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Alright, hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor for Blue to Gold law enforcement training, bring it to the roadside chat from Joplin, Missouri. Got a question from an officer in Florida. He basically wants me to clarify protective sweeps and murder scenes. Okay, so the officer says, you know, he was watching one of my videos regarding protective sweeps, I mentioned the case called Mincy versus Arizona. And I'll explain in a second, where I talked about there's, you know, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no murder scene exception to the search warrant requirement. Okay. And then, you know, so he's talking about look, you know, however, if response reporting shooting in a driveway of a residence, wouldn't we have exigent circumstances, to conduct a warrantless sweep of the residence for possibly other injured parties to see if the perpetrator is still on scene, you know, and so forth. Right. Also, the officer says, you know, we also, you know, follow the trajectory of the bullet to see if other people been injured, you know, across the street, maybe in the back, you know, the other houses on the other street and so forth. And, and to make sure that nobody was hit similar to a public safety statement, you know, hey, where did you shoot? How many rounds? Did you fire? That type of thing? I'm looking at my computer, by the way. So any clarification would help? Look, let's let's do this. This is, uh, this is great. This is a great question. It's a great follow up question. Let's make sure that if there's some confusion about what I'm saying, you're like, man, you know, that doesn't really sound right. You know, please, I want you to reach out to me, because in my brain, it all makes sense. But when I make these quick videos on the road, I could say something that may not be. I mean, it makes sense. So let's first talk about Mincy versus Arizona. Look, the general rule there is that once police secure the scene, and they're looking for other victims, and they don't find anybody looking for that perpetrator, that you can't, you can't just stay in people's homes, process a crime scene, you know, and then use that evidence against somebody who has a privacy interest in the home. And in the Mincy case, the cops are actually in the house for four days, four days processing that crime scene, and no warrant and no consent. So that's the problem. All right. And they, you know, they recover, like almost 300 pieces of evidence, and so all that was suppressed. And that's not the way we do it. So instead, when we have a crime scene, we go to a murder scene, right, like a shooting and so forth. What we're gonna do is we're gonna arrive on scene, and we're going to, you know, potentially enter the home if you believe that more victims, or the perpetrator can be in the home. So what the officer is saying is absolutely correct, right. You know, that's what they're doing. And that is absolutely permissible. Mincy does not prevent that, because menses only about processing crime scenes. It's not about protective sweeps, that would fall under other court cases. Marilyn versus buoy US Supreme Court. I also think a case called Ryberg. Versus Huff would also kind of cover the public safety aspect. It's it's not directly on point, but it does talk about how when officers, you know, reasonably believe that they're about to be attacked, you know, they can enter homes and so forth. And I think that would apply for potential perpetrators. But look, the vast majority of courts, if not all, courts, are going to let cops go in there and look for perpetrators and more victims...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero Here, attorney, Senior Legal instructor at Blue to Gold. Okay, so been really busy. I'm going to be putting out more of these videos as as we go forward here. But I'm outside of Cleveland, Ohio delivering our advanced search and seizure classes. And hopefully you've attended one of our classes. If not, please sign up online. Also, we traveled the country. Today's question comes from an officer in New York. And he was reading my book, the search and seizure Survival Guide. And he said, Hey, you know, you mentioned an automatic pat down in your book, what is an automatic pat down, you know, and just kind of give you some more context, and he wanted more context to understand what I was talking about. First of all, I'm glad he reached out because I don't normally use the word automatic anything. When it comes to the Fourth Amendment. There really are no automatics. I mean, everything is based on something else, like a search incident to arrest. Okay, it's automatic, right? I mean, you get to search somebody's incident to arrest, but it's not automatic in the sense that you have to have a lawful arrest. If you don't have a lawful arrest, then the search would be invalid to be for the poisonous tree. But what I mean by automatic pat downs is that when you're dealing with violent people who are suspected of violence, and that crime is is suspected of being involved with a weapon, then pat them down. Right? That's an automatic pat down. So violence plus weapon I mean, this is when you think about it, it's like okay, Anthony, that makes that makes sense. Obviously, I'm going to pat down somebody who I believe is violent and also has a weapon. And the reason why I call it automatic is because it instantly satisfies Terry, right? Terry versus Ohio has two requirements you know for pat downs right? It says that the person is considered armed and dangerous. Well, if they're if you believe that they could have a weapon, there's the arm check and dangerous if you believe that they've committed violence against somebody else, and they have a valid temperament Right? Or some other factors that believe that they could engage in a violent act on you well, there's the dangerousness equals pat down. So when you serve out these guys, you're gonna you're gonna pat them down, you're still going to articulate it, you're not going to use the phrase you know, I then conducted an automatic pat down in your report Don't say stuff like that the court will push back on you and say look, you know, what do you mean by automatic right? Say that I conducted a pat down because the person was believed to be involved in a violent crime such as you know, sexual assault and the report to be abused the weapon I you know, ie a knife gun, you know, some kind of striking device, you know, and so forth. So, that's what I mean. Alright, so there you go. Keep the questions coming hopefully adds a little more context to my viewer in New York, or my reader in New York and also some other cops guys, keep these questions coming. Please hit the Like button. let YouTube know if you find these videos, valuable. Comment. Any comments are great, you know, feedback for me and for the rest of the viewers. And finally, stay safe out there and keep up the good work. Thank you.

When it comes to law enforcement training, we are the gold standard, visit blue to gold.com or call 888-579-7796 to learn more about our training books and free webinars. Also, don't forget to like, subscribe and share this channel.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony here, bringing in a roadside chat from the road. Actually, I'm in Joplin, Missouri this weekend. It's actually really nice to be out here. And it's a beautiful place. So this question comes from an officer in Alabama. And he says, Can a subject be interviewed after invoking Miranda, on a separate case, by a different agency. And so the kind of the backstory is a suspect was arrested by a neighboring department. They went into interview him, but he said he wants to have an attorney. Now, this officer wants to read, you know, give him Miranda again, and interview him on a different case.

And here's the answer, the answer is that according to the US Supreme Court, this guy is off limits for any interview, regarding anti any crime for 14 days, post Miranda custody, alright. So this rule makes a little bit difficult for cops to get to interview people after they invoke the right to counsel. So there's a couple things going on. Number one is this 14 day rule, the 14 day rule comes from a US supreme court called Chester, where they made a bright line rule normally Supreme Court that doesn't make bright line rules, but here they did. So it's a bright line rule that if the guy invokes the right to counsel, he's off limits for 14 days, post Miranda custody, what does that mean? Post Miranda custody? Well, being in Miranda custody is a totality of circumstances tests that ask whether or not a reasonable person would believe custodial, like arrest exists. And the cops are asking questions, which are likely to elicit an incriminating response. So that's kind of like your arrests, you know, during the booking process, and so forth. But when does a person leave Miranda like custody? Well, if they're released from jail, certainly, that is easy. If they're put into general population, we don't have a lot of court cases on this. But if they're put into general population with other inmates, and they're going to be held for a while, this is not like a holding cell. But this is like their new home until they get bail money, or maybe they're just waiting trial, there's the best argument is that they are not in arrest, like custody at that point, because jail is now their home, we certainly know that. That prison is the person's home, and a person is not in Miranda custody, while they're serving a sentence in prison, it's less clear in jail, but I think the best advice I have for you is that, you know, let the person you know, if he's in general population, you know, let him have his 14 days, and then re mirandize him and see if he will talk now you don't need to talk to an attorney if you're talking about a different crime. But if you're talking about the same crime or any criminal act, you know, any crimes that can be related to that one he's been held on, he's off limits, period, basically, until he talks unless you have his attorney present, and the PERT and the attorney signs off on it. This rule sometimes has consequences that are not really logical like so for example, the cop here wants to talk to a guy about a different crime different agency. But yet, he's off limits for 14 days. ,,

When it comes to law enforcement training, we are the gold standard, visit blue to gold.com or call 888-579-7796 to learn more about our training books and free webinars Also don't forget to like, subscribe and share this channel

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Alright guys, welcome to another roadside chat. Today's question is, from an officer in Indiana, would the single purpose container doctrine allow cops to search a vehicles hidden compartment? Alright, so the first thing we want to learn is what is a single purpose container? Okay, a single purpose container is this doctrine that basically says some containers by their shape by their manner of under totality circumstances, the way that they're kept, the what they're packaged in. Things on the outside, are so telling of what to contain what the contents are, that a reasonable officer would know that only contraband is inside. So that's a roundabout way. So in other words, a single purpose container is a container that announces its contents in a manner that only contraband is inside. Okay, the why this is important. This is important because under the Fourth Amendment, in order to search a container, you have to have usually probable cause plus probable cause, plus search incident to arrest probable cause plus motor vehicle, probable cause plus consent, probable cause plus exigency. In other words, there is no such thing as searching a container based off a probable cause alone, it doesn't exist, it's a unicorn. So single purpose container doc doctrine basically saves some of these searches, it allows, because the way that the Supreme Court looks at it is that a single purpose container would not have any privacy interest, and so forth. Let me give you an example of a single purpose container, a drug package, right? A brick of cocaine. It's wrapped up in, you know, paper or duct tape and so forth. Can you see inside of it? No. But do you know that it's packaged in a way that only contraband is inside? Yes, therefore, you don't need any other reasons to search it. The reason the package containing contraband is enough, but don't be fooled, because sometimes you'll have probable cause that a container has contraband inside. But it's not a single purpose container because it could have something else like so for example, there was a case involving a cooler, and the cop smelled the marijuana emanating from the cooler and the cop opened the cooler and found marijuana. But the problem is the under this situation, the cooler was not near the guy wasn't search incident to arrest it wasn't part of the motor vehicle. The problem is that there was no other reason to get into the cooler because it was not a single purpose container. The cooler could have other things in it nonconscious ban bologna sandwich, Capri Suns, you get my point, not just marijuana in at this time was it was contraband. Alright, so now we get to the cops question, would the single purpose container doctrine allow cops a search of vehicles hidden compartment? Other words? Could the hidden compartment be viewed as a single purpose container? The answer is most likely not. I don't have any cases on it. I haven't seen it. But I don't really see courts, or at least prosecutors applying the single purpose container to hidden compartments of a vehicle. And here's for good reason. Frankly, you don't need the single purpose container doctrine to save the day for the searches. Why? Because the COP is going to have probable cause anyway. And if you have probable cause plus motor vehicle, that is the motor vehicle exception, why not just use that? Forget the whole more complicated argument about single purpose container? So that's really the answer here. We don't need the single purpose container to even search the hidden compartment because you're going to have if you have probable cause you have probable cause and just use the motor vehicle exception. All right...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Alright guys, this question comes from an officer from Florida and basically the idea is the Carroll doctrine. Concerning passenger's property. Let me kind of read a little bit about about about the background for my email, give you some flavor what's going on. Alright, so officer in Florida had a traffic stop, right? For expired registration, now made contact with the driver and the passenger, who are both not the registered owners of the vehicle. The driver provided an expired with his license but learned later that it was suspended. The passenger provided an ER name, but no license and is also making it clear that they cannot search nobody can search her stuff, nor the car. Now she has a warrant, but we learned later that the warrant is not extra but extraditable about where they're at. So it's not going to be executable. Alright, so while hold on me. All right, there also the tag attached. The vehicle was not assigned to the tag on the license plate is not assigned to the vehicle. So there's all kinds of things going on. There's no canine available. Now the vehicle is inventorying for towing in plain view on the driver's side floor was a crack pipe, and then plain view. When the doors open open, we also see a US needle in the storage compartment, a book bag that the driver was holding. My first approach was searched, drug paraphernalia were found in some cocaine, the driver was charged appropriately. Now what we're going to be talking about here is what about the passenger? Right? The passenger also has some property. And can that now the passenger admits that hold on the passenger Okay, he's the pastor saying, hey, you know, the needle can't be the drivers because he's snorts his cocaine doesn't shoot a needle. But apparently, she admits that she uses needles. Right. But also, the needles might belong to the owner of the car. So the question is, could the passenger's purse be searched? Under the Carol doctrine, the motor vehicle exception is based on the totality of circumstances, alright. Hope you got a flavor what's what's kind of going on? But alright, so here's the deal. Okay. So, generally speaking, the passengers items fall under the Carol doctrine. So passengers don't fall under the Carol doctrine like passengers are not searchable under the motor vehicle exception. Instead, you have to have probable cause as to them whether you have probable cause here; that's not the question the COP is asking. So I won't address it. But we do know, from a case, I think it's called Wyoming versus hufton. Maybe not be saying that correctly. But it's Wyoming versus the US Supreme Court. And the US Supreme Court stated that if police have probable cause for the car, that they can also search those areas where they reasonably believe more evidence could be found. Well, okay, that's the question for us here. Do we believe that more evidence of the drugs could be found in the passengers? Purse? And I believe the answer is yes. But the way that you answer this question is another case. So we know that passenger stuffs our belongings are fair game if you have probable cause. Well, that brings us to another case called us versus Ross. And they're the US Supreme Court says that you search a car in the same manner as if you had a warrant. My question for you then is this. Do you think, based on the circumstances that the cop if he or she wanted to, can go get a warrant for the car in

for the purse? If the answer is yes, then you search the car, you search the purse? If the COP is unsure, then you probably shouldn't search the purse because you don't have your probable cause. In other words, what would you articulate? Is that make sense? That's kind of what we're looking at here...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Alright guys, this is a question that comes up a lot. It is when can we enter a home after a 911? Hang up? Right? I shouldn't really say 911 Hang up. And let me give you some context here from my email. All right, there's officers from Texas, you know, we often get sent to Nemo and hang up calls with no information provided by the caller. When we get on scene and someone answers the door, they typically tell us everything is fine. You know, inside it was also it was an accident. My question is, at what point do we have an obligation to go inside the home to check on the welfare of others. So the cop will typically ask if there's anyone else inside. And if they say no, and the cop doesn't have any reason to believe anyone else is inside there, then the officer concludes the investigation leaves. Now they tell the officer that someone is inside, I let them know that I want to check on the person to check on their welfare, and typically give them the option of bringing them to the cop right to the door, or the COP is going to potentially make a forced entry and walk past the husband, let's say and go check on people. Now, let's say that we get a 911 Hang up. And upon meeting the caller at the front door, we are informed it was an accident that they dialed 911 and everything is fine. They then tell us that there are other people inside but no emergency exists. We don't see anything that would indicate an emergency. I don't hear anything that would give us exigent circumstances to enter the home. The question is, are we obligated to check on the rest of the residents welfare inside the home? And if we enter the home without consent or any other agency, would that be violating the person's rights? All right. This is a great question. And you know that this comes up all the time. So let's just kind of address it now. First of all, the laws, you know that the officer can recognize that he's did some research and the case was a little over the place. I will say that the majority of the cases seem to be supportive of the officer's actions. Right of going in of making sure that people okay nama one hangups, you know, can be pretty serious. But this is 2021. This is not your grandparents Police Department. There are a lot of stuff going down today that was would never have gone down even 10 years ago. So the game that we're playing today is way more advanced is way more protective of your liability. Okay. So with that said, Here's what I teach. Number one. What is the rule? The rule is this falls under the emergency aid exception. This is not a does not fall under community caretaking. We know that community caretaking does not apply to homes. Right, we have that from a US Supreme Court case called Coniglio versus strong caretaking Communicare taking is a pretty a relatively low standard where cops just want to make sure that people are okay; that's not the standard that we use anymore. We are definitely in the ballpark of exigency emergency urgency, and that falls under the emergency aid exception. So, therefore, in order for you to push past the husband, for example, and check on the occupants, you're going to be able to need to articulate some ongoing emergency where time is of the essence...

Alright guys, today's question comes from an officer in Texas and asked me, Can you trespass? Someone sleeping in a rented storage unit, I am sure that all of you have run into something similar. So Now, usually I don't touch statute issues. I'm a search and seizure guy. But I think I can address this when I see them being pretty straightforward.

And the answer is, yes. I think that this ties in with search and seizure, because we have a lot of debates today about, you know, when Pete When homeless people have nowhere to go, you know, police options are sometimes limited. But we're when we're talking about those cases, Martin versus Boise, for example, out of the Ninth Circuit, we're talking about situations of public property, right? There is a debate going on around the country, where if homeless people do not have a place to go, and they're sleeping in parks, and so forth, and under bridges, and cops want to trespass them and move them along. The question for the courts becomes where, right, okay, you want to move them from here to there? Or move them? And then where, right? Where can they go? Is there a shelter available, if there's not a shelter available is another place that they can go like a designated urban camping spot. So that's kind of where I think the flavor is coming from. But normally, we don't have those issues when it comes to private property. Now, the storage unit is not a hotel, it's not sanitary, there's no bathrooms. It's just, you know, the it's not safe, frankly, for safe and sanitary, sanitary, for people to be sleeping in storage units. So this the, if the rental storage unit, you know, manager wants to kick these people out for improper use of the storage unit, I see no problem at all, for criminal trespass, for my understanding of Texas law, but you know, even a lot of places, it's just not going to be a lawful use of the premises. So therefore, they can be trespassed, I think it's a pretty straightforward question. I understand. I'm going to also again, give a little spin about how to look at it through the eyes of maybe some search and seizure issues because of the homelessness problems pervasive around the country. But again, I don't think that's going to change the outcome here. I think that the storage unit absolutely has the right to keep people out of their storage unit living in there, and they can be trespassed for it. Alright, so pretty straightforward answer, hopefully move the ball forward a little bit before you guys go. Do me a favor, hit like, please hit subscribe, and tell your friends about us. Alright, until next time, my friends stay safe.

When it comes to law enforcement training, we are the gold standard visit blue to gold.com or call 888-579-7796 to learn more about our training books and free webinars. Also, don't forget to like, subscribe and share this channel.

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hello, everyone, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing to the roadside chat. All right. So our question today comes from an officer in the great state of Tennessee. I Love Tennessee. All right. So here's the question. Can a tenant in a government housing project waive their Fourth Amendment protections of the home by lease agreement? Okay. Let me give some context. So the officer sharing here that in our local housing authority, it is my understanding that the manager can enter and search a tenants apartment anytime, under the lease agreement. On occasion, they have asked that we stand by while they do so. And have even asked for Kane for canine to sniff the apartment. Does this violate the Fourth Amendment? Or does the lease agreement act as it as act as consent? Alright, so the, the quick answer is, can the government housing project waive a person's fourth amendment rights?

And the answer is no. Because no government agency can basically tell a person you have no more fourth amendment rights, right? If you're going to take if you're going to subscribe to this or, you know, accept these government benefits, you have no fourth amendment rights, that's not the way to look at it instead. The question is, okay, are they asking for something that is reasonable? Right, if it's reasonable, it likely complies with the fourth time, it's not like the government, government housing projects have no have no authority to inspect their property to make sure that people are not abusing the property. And, you know, if they get a tip that something's manufacturing drugs or so forth, that they can't do anything about it. But the point is, still, is that is that a waiver of the Fourth Amendment? No. Is it potentially reasonable under the Fourth Amendment? Maybe? So let's go through it. So number one, apparently, right, or allegedly, the lease agreement says that we can come into your apartment anytime and inspect. I doubt that's the case. Right? If that if it truly said that we can come into your apartment anytime and you know, without notice, or without any kind of just cause I doubt a court would uphold that. Because that is not reasonable. Right? You are the government and you're in you're offering these benefits. And you're saying as a stipulation to accepting the benefit, I have to allow the government's right, you know, aka the Housing Authority, the law, the government to come into my home and just rummage through my stuff or just inspect my property? No. So I doubt that that's the case...

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing to the roadside chat from Knoxville, Tennessee. I got a question from an officer in Las Vegas, Nevada, Las Vegas Metro. So here's the question. Can you search a person for evidence if you have probable cause? Okay, so, you know, in other words, do you have to make the arrest? Right. Okay. Let's go through some a couple scenarios at the officer. I got my little laptop here that I'm reading from the car. Alright, so one is basically the officer had a consensual encounter with a suspect that he knows from the past prior arrests, you know, he's your neighborhood felon, get type deal, right? You know who he is. And the cop asked them hey, Johnny, you got meth on you. And this guy mitts? Yeah, I got meth on me. And so that can be a site and release type of situation. You don't have to arrest them, right? Otherwise, we don't have the problem. We can do a search incident to arrest the COP is asking, Can I retrieve that evidence? Without the arrest? And he's getting conflicting answers. But I have your answer. The answer is yes. The answer is yes. Under two, and under two rationales. Number one is exigency. You don't have time to go chase down a warrant, while this guy is standing on the street, even if he's in handcuffs, he can manipulate the evidence, he can, you know, if he has a, let's say, some kind of paraphernalia, he can, he can break it, he can land on it, you know, he can try to escape. The point is, you know, there's this exigency there, there's this, there's this urgency just to get the evidence off of his person to cure it, and then go from there. So there is usually exigency. And you know, the vast majority of courts have held the same. The other one is that the intrusion is less than what you could have done, which is arrest the guy. I mean, think about it. If it's an arrestable offense, it's it's a, it's a, it's a crime committed in your presence, you know, even if it's a misdemeanor, it's a crime being committed your presence, he is telling you that he has meth on his person. That is probable cause, right? I mean, why would he lie about that? So is there a fair probability he's telling the truth and add that also with his prior histories? And so, you know, how is he going to complain? When he goes to court and say, Your Honor, they should have retrieved that evidence. But isn't it true defendant that they could have also arrested you and did a full search incident to arrest including potentially a visual cavity search at jail if you're going to be put into general population? So the cop you're saying that the cops can do that, but they can't do a lesser intrusion? Which is just to retrieve the evidence cite you and have you go on your way? Is that what you're saying? Defendant? It doesn't. It's not reasonable, right? It's more reasonable just to do the lesser intrusion, and kick the guy loose. Okay, so and so now, the other scenario that the cop says, Okay, so there's the drug scenario, here's the nurse scenario. A person is detained by loss prevention. The loss prevention does not retrieve the evidence from the person, but they have him in custody, right. They're just basically doing a citizen's arrest. But they're not searching. So the cops show up, and they watch the, you know, security cam, and what did they see on a security cam, this guy stuffing stuff down his pants, you know, in his backpack, whatever. And now, can we retrieve that evidence without arresting him? Well, we know that this is not a misdemeanor coming your presence, by the way, you know, just because you watch a film of a past event is not come in your presence..

Search & Seizure Show | Volume VII | June 19, 2024 Have a search and seizure question in mind? Submit them for instructors to answer or join the next Search & Seizure show and get your questions answered LIVE ON AIR. 🚨 https://www.bluetogold.com/show https://bluetogold.com/trainings/?attendance=webinar

Alright. Today's question is, can we search a deceased victim's cell phone? Right? Okay, so comes from an officer in Alabama, let me ask, let me give you the context here recently, and, you know, at overdoses, our narcotics Units unit has been wanting to seize the cell phones for the purpose of searching them. The goal is to charge a drug dealer with the death of the individual, right? As well as general information gathering, maybe they can point to the right finger in the direction of local dealers in the in the city and so forth. Now, the cop says My understanding is that since the person is deceased, they no longer have a fourth human rights in the deceased has no more issue, privacy interest in the phone, and they can perform the search without a warrant. Now, the only hiccup the officer is seeing here is that what if the family member says no, you cannot take our son's cell phone? You cannot take our daughter cell phone? We want it that's going to be ours, because we're going to inherit his property? Do they now have to get a warrant? If they do not get consent? All right? Well, look, I kind of talked about cell phones before. But let me just re address it because it's a very important issue. Generally speaking, there is no privacy interest that the drug dealer has in the phone. So even if the cops search the phone with nobodies without the famous consent, even though they may get the property in probate or whatever, right. They don't, there's the family doesn't have a most likely a privacy interest in the phone. It's the son's phone, it's his phone. Now, even if they got the phone after the death, it's not, they still have no privacy interest in the information. So we're not going to really have an issue there. Even if they had a privacy interest, even if they're the only time the Fourth Amendment is going to be implicated as if they're being charged. So if the mom, for example, says you cannot have my, my, my phone, my son's cell phone, and we find out later that she paid the bill, she has common authority over the phone, she often uses it because the sun allows you to use it, and blah, blah, blah, that's not going to come up. And that's not going to be an issue of the criminal case against the drug dealer. Unless the drug dealer is mom, right. So even if mom has a privacy interest, it's not going to come into court because the drug dealer, if it's not mom at some third party, who's dealing drugs in the in the city is not going to be able to use go through mom to try to claim that he has some privacy insure. So again, it's at the end of the day, the result is probably the same. So just a wrap up. If somebody dies, and they have a cell phone, and police, you know, then the guy has the disease no longer has a privacy interest. He's not going to complain, right, obviously. And even if they somebody else, like the family member that has some tied to the phone complains, their denial, even for warrantless search is not going to be effective, as long as they're not a defendant. Right, because but if somehow, that family member who happens to have a privacy interest in a phone, which can be rare, but they happen to have a privacy interest phone, if they start becoming a person of interest, Houston, we have a problem. They can complain if they do have a legitimate privacy, interest and phone, they can complain about a warrantless search..

Alright, so today's questions is a little complex. So you got to bear with me on this one, I might need to take a little bit of your time to get through it. But the question is, is our orders to detain and transport the suspect back to the station for a formal interview? lawful. All right. So, alright, so not all states may have this, but there's still an interesting situation. So an officer from Missouri says that it is a common practice in Kansas City, Missouri, where the process the state prosecutor's issue in order A, it's called a stop order, or a PLI a person of interest order that's entered into the computer system. And when the person is found, they are then handcuffed, transported back to the station for a formal interview. Okay, so common practice. Now, it's this is not a fresh arrest, right? This is not, you know, where somebody got arrested and transported and, you know, we're gonna interview them. These are based off of these orders issued by the State prosecutors. Some of the officers feel that this is an unlawful practice. Right, that this is basically an unlawful arrest. And that you would have to have either an arrest warrant, probable cause or consent. Okay, so let's go through this. So first of all, let me say that if you have probable cause, to arrest the person, and, you know, the stop order is based on probable cause. We don't have an issue, I don't see the issue, because we can just call that an arrest, and just arrest the person. You see my point here. The only issue is going to be if the stop orders or P allies are based on reasonable suspicion or anything less than probable cause. So let me assume that that's what's going on. Again, now, it also talks about fresh PC, we don't have fresh PVC. I don't think it's gonna matter. I don't see the issue there. As long as you have probable cause, whether it's stale or fresh, if it's still probably caused, and there is a right to arrest the person. We can just call this stop order or poi an arrest warrant. Right. It may be it may be called it's not called an arrest warrant. But I think we just call it that, constitutionally, because it looks the same. That's what kind of looks like right. So if it's if these if these stoppers appeal wise or not based on probable cause, Houston, we have a problem. So let me just go through some I'm getting my source here from the great Wayne Lafave if you know, you've been in my classes, you know that Wayne Lafave is a God in in search and seizure, you know, history, and he's most cited and Prudential search and seizure expert, according to the US Supreme Court and so forth. And he has a treatise called the search and seizure treatise, right. So, here is a case where you see what this is a case in US versus Brignone. Ponce, for to to us. 873 1975. So, here's what the Supreme Court said about something like bringing bring the guy back to the police station, right. The detention of the petitioner was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest. Petitioner was not questioned briefly, where he was found. Instead, he was taken from a neighbor's home to a police car, transported to a police station and placed in an interrogation room sound familiar?...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hello everyone, Anthony Bandiero. Here, Attorney Senior Legal and started for Blue to gold law enforcement training, bringing to the roadside chat. Today's question is, what are the rules regarding a temporary seizure of a firearm during a traffic stop?

Great question by officer comes from North Carolina. So, base a little bit of context here, let me read what he or she wrote at a quick question regarding temporary seizing a firearm during a traffic stop. And so, this officer said, Look, I've watched your video about running the firearm, you know, serial numbers and things like that things to kind of think about, I do have another video about that. Um, you know, so he says, in my experience, besides blatantly obvious officer safety issues, right, there's something about the tropics, aka drive by shooting or a brandishing case. You know, we can seize them. Also, drivers will generally allow you to temporary seize a firearm if you ask for it, right. If you say, Hey, do you have any firearms in a vehicle and say yes, especially in a state like North Carolina, where a lot of people likely have firearms, especially if you explain to them why. But the officer also explains that that's not the only option that they do that he does. And maybe he also separates the firearm from the person maybe brings the guy out of the car. Hey, where's the firearm? Under the seat? Okay, fine. Much has come out and we'll do business outside the car. But push comes to shove. Right. The question is, if there are no other reasons, to be concerned for your safety, can we still separate the firearm and seize the firearm? I guess, right, seize the firearm during the traffic stop, even if we have no other reason to believe that they could use that firearm against us? And the answer is yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. Why? Because the firearm equals armed and dangerous. Right? That's Terry versus Ohio, right. So if you don't know about the firearm, they may or may not be armed and dangerous. You gotta articulate that. But the if you know that they have a firearm or have a reasonably the firearm, then they are automatically considered armed and dangerous to Terry Stop level, which is reasonable suspicion enough to seize that firearm during the traffic stop. That just makes sense. Because, you know, look, if a judge is going to second guess, a cop, and say, Hey, you have to have the firearm plus something else? Well, they're gonna have blood in our hands, right? There's gonna be that one cop out there that just can't have those as a gun inside the car, maybe even on the guy's hip. But can't figure out another reason why that gun could be a danger to the officer, then the person flips out on the cop shoots the cop. And now we have this case where the judge says you can't do it, the cop, the judge, is gonna have blood on his hands. Right or her hands. That's just not the way it works. So I've never seen a court case require something more than just a firearm if I mean, if you know the firearms there that is armed dangerous. So at the same time, look, I was a cop in a pro gun, state, Nevada. Everybody had guns. Right. So while well West, and the way I did business was, you know, oftentimes if they said they had a gun, and they were concealed carry permit, and there's nothing shady about them. They're on the up and up...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

All right, this question comes from an officer in Indiana. And the question is is, so if we have if I stop a car with fraudulent plates, can I search it for the documents, to prove ownership, insurance and so forth. And so here's, you know, here's kind of the context here. So I'm a police officer in Indiana. And we, the officer stopped a car that was being driven around with some paper plates. Now he ran the plates. And he said that it should have returned as just expired, but it didn't, I don't think it returned at all. So some kind of fictitious release result switching that the plates are fictitious, stop the driver stop the vehicle contacted the driver, and she says, I just bought this car off Facebook marketplace, paid cash, no title, no bill of sale, the play came with the car. So the whole thing is a mess. Right. And dispatch also notified that the that plate was expired in in 2020. And it actually because I guess an additional search on it, and it was registered for a different vehicle. So the whole thing is fraudulent. The car is likely, you know, unregistered, uninsured, probably uninsured and so forth. So we have some probable cause for some violations here. Now, the compensation, can I search the vehicle for documents, you know, for ownership, you know, any kind of proof that she's in on it, maybe some other paper tags and so forth? Right? Insurance? You know, stuff that proves that it's her vehicle disproves it, all this kind of stuff? And the answer is absolutely, absolutely. There are two reasons why number one, Yasser kind of mentions one of them, probably cause? So do you have probable cause? Is there a fair probability that more evidence is inside the car that could help you prove or disprove your case? And I think the answer is yes. Right? She's saying that she doesn't have anything else in the car, or, you know, the play came with it, let's see what else is in the car, right? She says she has no bill of sale; maybe if there's a bill of sale, that's, that's to somebody else. Maybe it proves that she sold the car and so forth, right? She has, or she knows that she's not supposed to have the car. But also, there's this other rationale that's also out there by courts, that simply states that when the owner driver of the vehicle is unable or unwilling, right, to provide any documentation for the vehicle, it is reasonable to search those places where those documents are often held. For the paperwork, glove box, center console, above the visor, you know, little areas where the cupholders are, and so forth, you know, in the trunk, if you can justify it, maybe maybe not, you know, but it's much cleaner, if they're in those, especially in those areas where they're under control the driver. But the point is, that's another reason because that's part of, you know, the regulation of vehicles that you're you're supposed to be providing this, this documentation to prove ownership, and legality and so forth. So probably cars plus those other case, the other case law, on the books help justify that I it'd be very, I'd be very surprised that there's a court out there that said that the officer here did not have the right to do a limited search for that paperwork. And in order to move the ball forward now, I also you're probably wondering the same thing. Well, Anthony, what about inventory searches, right? That could work too, but maybe for some reason, the officer does not want to tow the car. Maybe she pulled into her driveway. And there's not really a community caretaking rationale, you know, to tow the car, maybe we'll leave it there. Maybe it's in a private parking lot...

The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Alright, guys, today's questions is so important. It's important to every single officer watching my videos and those that watch my videos. It is what happens if we lose qualified immunity? Right? It's on your mind. I know it is. And if you've already lost qualified immunity in some of the states like Colorado and so forth in New York, New Mexico, right, then what does that mean? Okay, well, first of all, let's get down to it. What is qualified immunity qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that protects officers from lawsuits when the issue is not clearly established under the law. In other words, officers oftentime make decisions in the field, constitutional decisions that are not quite black and white, you know that the US Supreme Court has not addressed it, their Circuit Court has not addressed it, their state Supreme Court has not addressed this issue. So what is what are they supposed to do? Say, timeout? Suspect? Look, I'm going to timeout for a second. I'm going to go seek judicial approval. But what I'm going to do, and I'll be back, no, they can't do a timeout. So qualified immunity is there to protect officers except the blainley. Incompetent from lawsuits against for situations that are not clearly established under the law? In summary, to qualify for qualified immunity, right, to get to be immune from a lawsuit. The qualifications are this, number one, did you even violate the constitution? That's one question that the courts can ask and answer, right. Um, maybe they say, Look, I know, it's unclear that this officer, you know, but we actually find that the officer did the right thing. So, boom, we don't need qualified immunity, the officer actually was constitutional. But even if the court found that the officer was conducting or doing something that was unconstitutional, right, the next question is, alright, was the law clearly established at the time because, again, if the laws not clearly established, then it's not fair to hold the officer liable for money damages, when it's not even clear that they would have violated at the time of the act. So clearly established law comes from again, the US Supreme Court, and your circuit court, and your state Supreme Court. So for example, if you're in Texas, and you do something, right, and the Illinois State Supreme Court has found that what you did violates the Constitution, does that apply to you know, that is persuasive, not binding on my Texas officers, so that is not going to eliminate qualified immunity for Texas cops, right?..