Page 22 - Police Officer's Guide 2013

underlying motivation is either unknown or a motivation based upon avalid purpose (drug enforcement, DWI
prevention). However, if there is evidence that the underlying motivation is improper,(such as profiling or
retaliation) the stop will then be rendered unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.)

Searches during arrests or detentions
JAILS AND DETENTIONS STRIP SEARCH OF INCOMING DETAINEES

Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide
computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing
to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex
County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail,
petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks,
gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petitioner claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue,
hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees,
had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer
look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, armpits, and other body openings; had a mandatory
shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around,
and cough while squatting.

Contrary to the holding of several Circuit Courts, including the 5 Circuit, the Supreme Court held that
th
strip searching incoming inmates without reasonable suspicion did not violate the Fourth Amendment where the
inmate was to be placed in the general jail population. The court held that the need for jail security outweighed
the privacy interest of the individual. This was a five four decision and the concurring opinions indicate the
holding would go the other way if the inmate is not to be placed in the general jail population.

Florence v. Burlington County, U.S. Supreme Court, No. No. 10945. Decided April 2, 2012.

SEARCH & SEIZURE DRUG ARREST OF PASSENGER IN VEHICLE DOG HIT

Rodriguez and Izquierdo were arrested at a Border Patrol checkpoint outside of Falfurrias, Texas, after
the cab of the tractor-trailer in which they were stopped by Border Patrol agents was found to contain over 45
kilograms of marijuana in a concealed compartment. The stop was prompted in part by a Border Patrol dog, who
alerted while being walked around the truck. On appeal, Rodriguez contends that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress because (1) his warrantless arrest was made without probable cause and therefore
violated the Fourth Amendment, and (2) the warrantless search of the contents of his cell phone constituted an
unlawful search incident to his arrest.

The Supreme Court, however, has previously allowed the warrantless arrest of all the passengers in a car
in which drugs were found when none of them would claim ownership of the drugs in question. Maryland v.
Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 372 (2003). Similarly, in this case, after the discovery of the marijuana, neither Rodriguez
nor Izquierdo acknowledged ownership of it, and it was therefore an entirely reasonable inference . . . that any
or [both] of the [trucks] occupants had knowledge of, and exercised dominion and control over, the [marijuana]
that was found. Id. Rodriguezs warrantless arrest was thus amply supported by probable cause.

Rodriguez argues, though, that, even if the cell phone was found on his person, the warrantless search of
its contents exceeded the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest under Gant. We disagree. In United
States v. Finley, we held that a search incident to arrest of the contents of a cell phone found on an arrestees

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 15 2013 Edition