Rapper 2 Chainz was arrested in Oklahoma City after a concert. AIUI, the police wanted to search the bus but the driver shut and locked the door. 9 hours later, a warrant was issued and the bus was searched and impounded. I know there’s no “bright line” on how long a Terry stop can last but is there anyway (even in Oklahoma) that 9 hours can be considered brief?
Is the increased time due to the fact that they refused to get off of the bus?
[unrelated]Lil Wayne was pissed last year when he wasn’t given courtside seats to an OKC Thunder game. I don’t think this is going to help his impression of OKC. [/unrelated]
There are limits in how long a traffic stop can go on and I think most judges would consider nine hours an unreasonable amount of time.
So I doubt this is going to seen as an issue of excessive duration of a traffic stop. The question will probably be whether the people on the bus were obstructing the police during the initial stop and thereby subject to being arrested.
Are they claiming it is a terry stop? It’s been a while, but I thought terry was just a stop for a weapons check. Or more a search/patdown when they stop you to make sure you aren’t packing (and limited to what could be a weapon).
Not specifically. A Terry stop, from my understanding, is that principle under which the police can temporarily detain you without placing you under arrest.
A police officer shows up at the scene. Somebody decides that he doesn’t want to get involved so he starts to leave the area. The police officer can tell that person to not leave while he is checking what happened. The police are not placing the person under arrest but they do have the power to tell him to stay at the scene.
It’s associated with traffic stops because a lot of times this situation arises when the police stop a vehicle. This is the principle that says you can’t just drive away. (John Terry, the man the principle was named after, was in fact not in a vehicle when he was arrested.)
A key factor is the police cannot stop somebody just as a general practice. They have to be able to show they thought some crime was involved - either having occurred or being about to occur. This is another reason why Terry stops are associated with traffic stops. The police will stop somebody for a crime like speeding or having a headlight out. There are relatively fewer minor crimes like this that apply to a pedestrian.
The next issue is what the police can require of you in this situation. Judicial decisions have ruled the police can ask you for your identity and you have to tell them who you are. On the grounds of safety, the police can ask you to step out of a vehicle or building so you are in plain view and they can pat frisk you to see if you have a weapon on your person if they have reason to believe you are armed. They can also seize something as evidence of a crime if it’s in plain view (although there are complications).
Another factor, relevant to this thread, is the police can only detain you for a reasonable amount of time. One issue is whether you are staying “voluntarily”. Did you ask if you could leave and were you told to stay?
From what I can find, the police can detain you for an amount of time which is “reasonable”. How long is that? It depends. Let’s say the police stop you for a DUI and you consent to a breathalyzer test - but the officer doesn’t have a breathalyzer unit in his vehicle. It would be considered reasonable if he made you wait while somebody at the police station drove out to where you were being detained with the breathalyzer unit.
Oklahoma laws applies, true, but the 4th AM is the crux here.
In this case from memory, the Supreme Court upheld a 16 hour investigative detention.
By locking the door, it could provide Reasonable Suspicion the criminal activity was “afoot”, as Terry outlines. IF the police had Probable Cause that contraband existed in the vehicle, they did not have to wait for a warrant under the “automobile exception”.
The fact that they waited indicated there was not PC at that time/and or wanted to let an impartial magistrate make the final decision?
WHY, they did not search before a warrant will be brought up I am sure by the rappers attorney.
I am sure the question will be so maybe the police wanted to avoid a confrontation until they got a warrant, hard to say. As said, by locking the door, was a STRONG indication of the “specific and articulable facts”, that weapons/drugs were in the van.
A prolonged TERRY stop, without additional facts warranting the detention, turns into a defacto Arrest.
In a POST case, the SC upheld a restraint of a person from letting him enter his home for 2 hours.
Most Courts, per the wording of a SC ruling, treat motor vehicle stops as Terry Stops, meaning only a “reasonable suspicion” need be present to seize (stop) a car.
This article makes it a little clearer. The police saw evidence of drug use, and told everyone to get off the bus (presumably so the cops could do a search under the auto-mobile exception). Someone (or all of them, its not clear) refused to get out and locked the door.
So the problem wasn’t so much being able to legally search the vehicle, but to physically overcome the suspects resistance to being searched. Once the cops had the warrant, they towed the bus to the cop station and did the search there. The people on the bus were charged with obstruction, not possession.
(I suspect part of the reason for waiting nine hours was just to wait out the suspects, as opposed to trying to force the issue and knock out a window or whatever.)
The bus was originally stopped because its taillights weren’t working. That may only be a violation but it is a crime which gives the police reasonable ground to stop the vehicle. So that’s the first prong of a Terry stop.
At this point, the police had the right to ask the people on the bus to identify themselves and step out of the vehicle. If they refused to do this, they can be charged with obstructing. This appears to be what happened.
I’d be interested in hearing the officers’ statement as to what evidence of drug use they observed as they were approaching the bus.
I had a friend who was at 2 Lil Wayne concerts in the last few years. Per him, it was probably the billows of mariwanny smoke knocking the officer over.
The article actually says narcotics were found on the bus when they finally did the search and more charges may be filed, so apparently they didn’t manage to smoke everything. (I imagine it was a lot easier to hold everyone on on the obvious obstruction they’d all participated in then try and figure out on the spot who belonged to the drugs.)
The question really is why it took 9 hours to get a warrant. That part seems unreasonable - you hear about judges being woken up to sign warrants at all hours.
I assume the warrant was to be sure things would stick.
Plus, if the bus is essentially someone’s home for the duration (beds, kitchenette, the works) I imagine there’s a difference between that and searching an automobile… Although I’d be very surprised if the case law on that is not already established.
I also wonder what that does to the prosecution’s case… Does it weaken their argument?
We have the right to search your bus without a warrant.
Look, we waited and got a warrant.
A judge signed the paper saying “this paper gives you the authority to search”
We’re charging you with obstruction for not letting us in without a warrant.
We waited and got a warrant.
I’m sort of thinking the obstruction charges are more like a “get even” charge and the case will be tossed then.