# A 9 hour Terry stop? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 22, 2013, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913 "2013-08-22T22:19:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/21 "2013-08-24T06:06:57Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > 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. Was the obstruction charge specifically based on not letting the police on the bus without a warrant? As I wrote earlier, refusing to get off the bus would probably be valid grounds for an obstruction charge and the warrant would be irrelevant to that. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/22 "2013-08-24T06:26:00Z")
The Terry stop portion ended when these guys refused to leave the bus. If the police have a reasonable suspicion that a law is being violated, they may affect a traffic stop. At a traffic stop, it is permissible for cops to ask the driver and all passengers to exit the vehicle and do a brief patdown of their outer clothing to search for weapons only (this is the Terry frisk part). When these guys refused to leave the bus, they were disobeying a lawful directive and obstruction the police officers. They could have went in guns a blazing and pulled the old #6 on these guys, but to their credit, they showed some restraint, plus dotted their I s and crossed Ts, and waited for a warrant. I don’t see an issue here. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/23 "2013-08-24T13:54:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. The Classification of _Violation_ is not a criminal offense, however, ANY motor vehicle violation (meaning breach of), provides a constitutional basis to effect a seizure. > [@](#): > > 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. To request an ID from a passenger is lawful, but the demand is only enforceable in certain circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/24 "2013-08-24T15:16:36Z")
If the bus is a dwelling, then they are perfectly entitled to close the door until a warrant arrives ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/25 "2013-08-24T16:18:00Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > If the bus is a dwelling, then they are perfectly entitled to close the door until a warrant arrives That isn’t correct. The automobile exception includes things such as mobile homes and the like, so long as they’re on the road moving from place to place. (kind of a stretch to call a tour-bus a dwelling to, but in anycase, it doesn’t make a difference). ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/26 "2013-08-24T17:55:46Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > That isn’t correct. The automobile exception includes things such as mobile homes and the like, so long as they’re on the road moving from place to place. Even in California v. Carney, a mobile motor home was considered a transit vehicle, and a warrantless search was permitted. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/27 "2013-08-24T18:09:44Z")
To add, in Carney, the home was stationary, but as defined “readily mobile”, etc. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/28 "2013-08-24T18:52:11Z")
See, I knew the law had already decided this sort of thing. I suppose then it comes down to how probable the cause for search was? Also, what are the limitations of a warrantless search of a motor vehicle? How “plain sight” does contraband have to be? (Obviously the cops don’t rip the rocker panels apart with every car they stop, unless the NSA tells them to). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/29 "2013-08-24T19:39:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The bus was originally stopped because its taillights weren’t working. Yes, and I am guessing that they were shattered in a pattern that looked oddly like a nitestick stuck them. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/30 "2013-08-24T20:07:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, and I am guessing that they were shattered in a pattern that looked oddly like a nitestick stuck them. :rolleyes: DWB? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2013, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/31 "2013-08-24T22:48:58Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > How “plain sight” does contraband have to be? (Obviously the cops don’t rip the rocker panels apart with every car they stop, unless the NSA tells them to). That’s really complicated. Where was the object? What was around the object? How was the object seen? What other senses were involved? What technology was involved? Who found the object? Was anyone else involved? What were intents and motivations of the people involved? Id something was moved, what was the reason it was moved and who moved it? For example, let’s say you’re a police officer and you go to a house to ask the resident some questions. You walk up to their front door and through a window next to their front door you see marijuana inside the house - that’s plain sight. But suppose you knock on the front door and nobody answers so you walk around to the side of the house and see marijuana though a window on the side of the house - that’s not plain sight. Now suppose you knocked on the front door and nobody answered so you walk around to the back of the house to knock on the back door and while walking to the back door, you see marijuana though a window on the side of the house - that’s plain sight again. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/32 "2013-08-25T02:46:06Z")
Isn’t stopping a rapper’s bus, just about the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel re the probability of finding drugs? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/33 "2013-08-25T04:05:38Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Isn’t stopping a rapper’s bus, just about the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel re the probability of finding drugs? Pretty sure that “those people always have drugs” isn’t going to fly as a valid reason for a search. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2013, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/34 "2013-08-25T18:00:03Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > I suppose then it comes down to how probable the cause for search was? > Also, what are the limitations of a warrantless search of a motor vehicle? How “plain sight” does contraband have to be? (Obviously the cops don’t rip the rocker panels apart with every car they stop, unless the NSA tells them to). ONLY if there is a positive dog sniff, a case just decided, can any so called “tear it apart” deal happen without a SW. Just smelling weed by an officer is not enough PC to do that. In Ohio, such is PC to search the passenger compartment, but not the trunk. I copied this from another board I used to be on, it is from a CA officer’s manual. Understanding the automobile exception > [@](#): > > \Well, here is the application in CA (note while most are CA law there are a couple of 9th Circuit opinions and some USSC cases referenced): > > You may conduct a warrantless search of any part of a vehicle that is being used on a public thoroughfare, or which is readily capable of such use, as long as you have probable cause to believe the object you are looking for may be located in that portion of the vehicle. For example, you may search the passenger compartment, the glove compartment, under the hood, in a locked trunk compartment, or in any of the vehicle’s contents, as long as what you are looking for might reasonably be located there. (Houghton (1999) 526 U.S. 295; Ross (1982) 456 U.S.798, 820-821; Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565, 569-570, 580; Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 469; Superior Court (Nasmeh) (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 85, 100-101; Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 365.) You do not need any additional dangerous circumstances or exigencies beyond the mobility that is inherent in any vehicle that can be operated. (Labron (1996) 518 U.S. 938, 940; Carney (1985) 471 U.S. 386, 390-391.) > > Note: Apart from the “automobile exception,” the general “exigent circumstances” exception can also justify a warrantless vehicle search without probable cause. (Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 469; see discussion in Ch. 3-IV-A-2.) > > Note: The “automobile exception” applies not only to any vehicle that is readily mobile, but also to any vehicle that reasonably appears mobile, even if in fact it is not. (Hatley (9th Cir. 1993) 999 F.2d 392, 395.) > Note: As will be discussed below, the “automobile exception” likewise applies to other vehicles, including motor homes, vans, bicycles, motorcycles, and houseboats. > > Note: This “vehicle” or “probable cause” justification for a warrantless vehicle search is entirely separate and different from the “incident to (custodial) arrest” justification discussed under section III above, even though, in some situations, they may both exist at the same time. (Overland (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1114.) > > The key to understanding this “automobile exception” is to realize that it is based on “probable cause” and that “probable cause” here means exactly the same thing that it does in a search warrant context, namely, enough facts, knowledge, training, etc., to provide a “fair probability” that the object you are looking for will be found in the place (portion of the car) you want to search. (See Ch. 6, “Search Warrants”; Pinela-Hernandez (9th Cir. 2001) 262 F.3d 974, 978; Allen (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 445, 450; Nonnette (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 659, 665-666.) ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2013, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/35 "2013-08-26T05:48:21Z")
So if I understand this, a “warrantless vehicle search” is no different than applying for a warrant, you just don’t need to wait for a warrant. You still need the same level of probable cause and need to know specifically what you are looking for. So does “I smell pot smoke” give the officer free reign to toss every cupboard and look under the mattresses (or rip them open) on a tour bus, essentially a mobile home? I guess the real detail, not in the story but doubtless in the search warrant, is a more detailed explanation of the officers’ “probably cause” grounds. The tail lights give them grounds to stop the bus in the first place. They need more to search the vehicle. I’m curious what you’re going to see that creates suspicions from the outside of a tour bus, likely with tinted windows much higher than a person outside can see in. I assume it’s either the warm smell of colitas rising up through the air, or trooper fantasies. ---
**Author:** ![Nuveena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a587f6/32.png) [@Nuveena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nuveena)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/36 "2013-08-27T22:37:29Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > If the bus is a dwelling, then they are perfectly entitled to close the door until a warrant arrives [Jesse Pinkman] I will not be harassed in my place of domicile … bitch! [/Jesse Pinkman] ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/37 "2013-08-27T23:14:58Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > 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. Search warrants are only quick, simple and easy on TV. In reality they are a pain in the ass and take a while to put together properly. Even if there is someone working at the time who has an affidavit and SW shell on his computer. Most patrol officers don’t apply for warrants. If this was at night it wouldn’t surprise me that they had to call in a detective from home, have him fill out the search warrant, set up an appointment to see a judge, then get the warrant approved. And that’s after probably a long time of trying to get them off the bus. I can easily see it going 9 hours. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/38 "2013-08-27T23:45:49Z")
I don’t think this has anything to do with Terry stops. If they stop the bus, and have probable cause to believe there’s drugs, or whatever, inside, they have the right to search it. Locking the doors doesn’t change anything, legally, it just makes it harder for the cops to do what they have the right to do anyway. If the passengers wanted to complain, I think the response would be: “you have no one to blame but yourselves. You had no legal right to stop the cops from getting on the bus in the first place.” The other side of it is: Don’t want the cops to search your car? Lock your doors, and eventually they have to go away." No judge is going to make that ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/39 "2013-08-28T00:06:33Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Locking the doors doesn’t change anything, legally No, it does have a legal effect. If it’s a situation where the police have a right to search and you lock the door, it’s obstruction. That means you’re now committing a crime even if you have no criminal contraband. And if the police yell through the door and tell you you’re under arrest for obstruction and order you to open the door and step off the bus and you don’t, then you’re resisting arrest. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2013, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913/40 "2013-08-28T16:17:39Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, it does have a legal effect. If it’s a situation where the police have a right to search and you lock the door, it’s obstruction. That means you’re now committing a crime even if you have no criminal contraband. > > And if the police yell through the door and tell you you’re under arrest for obstruction and order you to open the door and step off the bus and you don’t, then you’re resisting arrest. Exactly. Then any rules under Terry or any other noncustodial detention are moot. At that point you are trying to effect an arrest. There is no need to worry if it is becoming a defacto arrest due to time. Its already an arrest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-9-hour-terry-stop/666913.md?page=3)