FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!
Doug  Wyllie

Doug Wyllie

Doug Wyllie has authored more than 1,000 articles and tactical tips aimed at ensuring that police officers are safer and more successful on the streets. Doug is a Western Publishing Association “Maggie Award” winner for Best Regularly Featured Digital Edition Column. He is a member of International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), an Associate Member of the California Peace Officers’ Association (CPOA), and a member of the Public Safety Writers Association (PSWA).
November 2018 (2)
October 2018 (4)
September 2018 (3)
August 2018 (6)
July 2018 (4)
June 2018 (3)
April 2018 (1)
March 2018 (2)
January 2018 (1)
September 2017 (1)
August 2017 (1)
May 2017 (1)
April 2017 (1)
January 2017 (1)
November 2016 (1)
September 2016 (1)
June 2016 (2)
May 2016 (3)
April 2016 (2)
March 2016 (1)
February 2016 (3)
January 2016 (1)
December 2015 (1)
November 2015 (5)
October 2015 (1)
September 2015 (3)
August 2015 (3)
July 2015 (6)
June 2015 (3)
May 2015 (2)
April 2015 (3)
March 2015 (5)
February 2015 (1)
January 2015 (1)
December 2014 (9)
October 2014 (2)
September 2014 (2)
August 2014 (2)
July 2014 (1)
June 2014 (2)
May 2014 (2)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (2)
February 2014 (3)
January 2014 (3)
December 2013 (2)
November 2013 (2)
October 2013 (3)
September 2013 (5)
August 2013 (3)
July 2013 (3)
June 2013 (3)
May 2013 (4)
April 2013 (3)
March 2013 (5)
February 2013 (3)
January 2013 (3)
December 2012 (5)
November 2012 (2)
October 2012 (4)
September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (5)
July 2012 (4)
June 2012 (3)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (6)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (3)
January 2012 (5)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (3)
October 2011 (3)
September 2011 (3)
August 2011 (2)
July 2011 (2)
June 2011 (3)
May 2011 (4)
April 2011 (3)
March 2011 (5)
February 2011 (3)
January 2011 (3)
December 2010 (2)
November 2010 (4)
October 2010 (4)
September 2010 (5)
August 2010 (4)
July 2010 (4)
June 2010 (4)
May 2010 (4)
April 2010 (3)
March 2010 (3)
February 2010 (1)
January 2010 (3)
December 2009 (4)
November 2009 (4)
October 2009 (2)
September 2009 (3)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (5)
June 2009 (3)
May 2009 (5)
April 2009 (4)
March 2009 (4)
February 2009 (3)
January 2009 (2)
December 2008 (4)
November 2008 (3)
October 2008 (3)
September 2008 (3)
August 2008 (2)
July 2008 (3)
June 2008 (4)
May 2008 (5)
April 2008 (5)
March 2008 (4)
February 2008 (5)
January 2008 (3)
December 2007 (2)
November 2007 (5)
October 2007 (4)
September 2007 (4)
August 2007 (5)
July 2007 (4)
June 2007 (4)
May 2007 (5)

A Few Words on Searches of Detainees

When it comes to dirtbag treasure hunts, your words can prove better than any metal detector.

March 18, 2011  |  by - Also by this author

Cops love to have probable cause, but aren't above the "nothing ventured, nothing gained" school of thought when it comes to getting a permissive search.

How they go about getting that permissive search will hopefully always be of concern. None of us wants to live in a police state and you don't have to play the "six degrees" game to make the leap from "permissive search" to extorted compliance (at which point we're no better than the robber who lets his victim decide if he wants to get it in the nose or the wallet).

Should a permissive search precipitate an arrest and filing, any defense attorney worth his or her salt is going to dissect everything from the physical environment to the officer's attire, body language, and choice of words: More than one cop has found that the whole "easier to get forgiveness than permission" thing doesn't necessarily fly when it comes to judicial review.

Still, we've all been pleasantly surprised at what open-ended and consensual contact can garner. Indeed, where would law enforcement be without simple questions like "Do you have any guns or knives on you?"

Admittedly, such questions are about on par with "Have you stopped beating your wife?": If the subject says, "yes," he knows he's subject to search; if he says "no," then surely he'd have no reservation of your conducting a cursory pat-down search...right?

And many cops will ask the same question of a subject irrespective of whether they already have probable cause, or what manner of investigative concerns they have (e.g., possible drug transaction, probable gang member, etc.).

Often, this is because many cops have an almost scripted approach to a variety of situations: "Sir, may I see your driver's license and registration? Do you know why I stopped you?" Some aspects are scripted, such as field show-up procedures on witnesses' identification of suspects and Miranda warnings.

But routinely asking subjects, "Do you mind if I search you for weapons?" can become problematic, as noted legal expert Devallis Rutledge explains.

"I personally try to discourage cops from asking for consent by saying, 'Do you mind...?'" Rutledge says. "Either way the suspect answers, the defense attorney will argue that it wasn't consent: 'Yes' means 'Yes, I do mind, so you may not search;' 'No' means 'No, you may not search.' Either way, we lose, since we have the burden of establishing valid consent if that's our justification to search. The linguistic ambiguity created by asking 'Do you mind?' works to the suspect's advantage every time."

That's not to say it'll prove an automatic loss. Courts have recognized that a suspect's turning around and raising his arms to accommodate a search illustrates consent, even when a technical refusal has otherwise been made. But it's a poor practice to hang your hat on.

By asking if you can search for guns, narcotics, or other illicit goodies, you automatically open up the scope of your search. Feeling something that you recognize by size, texture, and configuration to be a dime baggie, heroin balloon, or zip-lock bit of nose candy is all fine and good. But it's even better if you expressed your desire to search for such up front.

Some cops will say, "Wait a minute! I don't want to ask him that! The moment I do, I run the risk of him running on me, trying to destroy the stuff, or fighting with me!"

Valid concerns, and all the more reason you may want to handcuff or otherwise secure a subject between the time he or she gives you permission to conduct the search and when you actually conduct it.

True, they have the right to revoke your permission at any stage, but that's a given anyway: It's been my experience that cuffs were never a deal-breaker. Let's face it: Ninety-nine and 44 percent of the time we're not going up against Professor Moriarty here. And woe unto them if their synaptic doldrums are even further fried by the very objects of our grabby pursuits.

A little charm can go a long way, too. By catering to their ego without emboldening them - "You play college football?" - you might even get them empathizing with your desire to secure them before searching.

While any subject can run, fight, destroy evidence, or otherwise turn a situation to shit, most don't want to make things worse for themselves than they already are, and the moment you're in their personal space, the more inhibiting the prospects for their doing so become.

Might a lawyer protest the totality of your actions as "coerced compliance"?

Yeah - but if it comes to that, it probably means the SOB was dirty for something and you ended up arresting him (which will make subsequent justifications for searches easier, i.e. he has been known to carry guns/dope). My number one priority was always officer safety first.

I've heard cops take a variety of approaches in going for a search:

Assertively: "For my safety, I'm going to search you for weapons."

Narrowing the scope: "If you don't have any objections, I'd like to search your car. Do you?"

Going for the whole kit and caboodle: "May I search you, your car, your dog, your iPhone, and your girlfriend?"

Now, some of this is obviously being written with tongue firmly in cheek. But one point is inarguable - cops can stand to be more aware of how they go about acquiring permissive searches.

Dissipating a person's anxiety can go a long way toward acquiring that compliance. Indeed, the more rehearsed or scripted your request may seem, the more it will seem to the suspect that it's simply your way of engaging people, not that you're especially curious about his or her actions in particular.

Finally, don't sell humor short. It can prove disarming in more ways than one: "Do you have any guns, knives, bazookas, paper scissors, bug repellant, pro-Obama literature, or anything else that may endanger my peace of mind?"

Given the ongoing judicial second guessing of our probable cause, permissive searches, and "exigent circumstances," one might reasonably ask: Will there ever be a failsafe method of gaining access to those things we'd like to?

Search me.

Be the first to comment on this story

POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Blog Posts

Speaking on the Unspeakable: Ending the Pandemic of Police Officer Suicide
I've talked with officers who have lost a colleague to suicide—as well as many widows of...
Love and Hate: Some Observations about the Pittsburgh Synagogue Attack
It's somewhat disappointing that it takes an act of evil for the pure good in people to...

Police Magazine