Ok, say a policeman pulls up to you while you are walking in the street and then he pulls your buddy over to the front of his car and asked (tells) you to have a seat on the curb, but while he pats your buddy down to “go ahead and empty your pockets while you wait for me”.
What are the legalities for this? I would think this is illegal search and seizure and also a sneaky way for you to incriminate yourself, am I right or can he actually ask this and you have to comply ?
As I understand from the answers to the various incarnations of this question that come around from time to time the answer is yes and no: he can ask, you don’t have to comply. However, not complying may result in him escalating the encounter. I’m sure an actual legal type will be along shortly.
IANAL.
My understanding is that the procedure to follow is to ask “Am I free to go?” Any response other than “Yes” means that this is custodial interrogation. You do not have to answer any questions other than identifying yourself, and you do not need to consent to any searches, which means you do not have to empty your pockets. The police may pat you down for weapons, and, if they feel what they believe to be a dangerous object they may remove it from your pocket.
Simply say “My name is FirstName LastName; I live at such-and-such an address, and I don’t consent to any searches. I do not choose to answer any questions at this time.”
If he starts pulling things out of your pockets, like your wallet, do not resist. No matter what the question is, keep repeating “I do not choose to answer any questions at this time.” Failure to consent to a search cannot be made the basis for an arrest.
Do not attempt to tell the officer what he can or cannot do. Simply repeat your mantra.
The short answer is that it is perfectly legal for the police to ask you to empty your pockets. It is equally legal for you not to do so.
Regards,
Shodan
The problem with these types of questions is the reality is often worse.
Sure you can exercise your rights and the cops will exercise their right to put you in a cell with a guy who just knifed his girlfriend.
Police are allowed to exercise “RESONABLE” searches without a warrent. What constitutes a reasonable search? Well that is up to the judge, and because judges are individuals the standards differ from place to place or judge to judge.
Obviously if a cop pats you down and thinks you have a gun or pepper spray in your pockets they may ask you to empty your pockets and if they refuse they may, IF they believe you’ll use that weapon against them, they may take it.
But you have to be realistic.
Cop) Empty your pockets
You) Am I free to go?
Cop) Please comply by emptying your pockets
You) Am I free to go…
So now you’re in a squad car heading to the station. The police have the right to detain suspicious people. You are handcuffed and brought into the station and put in a cell where BEFORE you entered the cell you’re requied to empty all your pockets.
So what have you accomplished? You’re pockets are still emptied while you sit in jail waiting for a lawyer.
The bottom line is the police do not need a reason to bring you in, they can detain you on a suspicion. Of course if they do this repeatedly they can be sued for harassment
Two vids informative videos about police encounters and your rights:
Remember, it’s a police officer’s job to enforce the law and a judge’s job to decide issues of law. If you think it’s an illegal search, my advice is to do it anyway with a statement that you don’t consent to a search. If they find your crack, they can arrest you. Then you can contest the search at trial.
This depends entirely on the jurisdiction. Where is this hypothetical encounter taking place?
Of what? Suspicion of “having a dangerous ‘thing’ in your pocket?” 
On suspicion of being a smart-ass if they want. All they have to do is kick you loose the next day. Your legal options are zero.
Which means you actually have to go in front of a judge and hire a lawyer. Best just to refuse to be searched without resisting.
To the OP, you don’t have to empty your pockets. If you are stopped by the police, they can do a pat down for the officer’s safety. That includes patting down your pockets. If, at that point, they have reasonable suspension to believe that you have something illegal in your pockets, then they can search your pockets.
We get similar threads quite frequently around here.
Unless a lawyer within your jurisdiction cares to respond with a hypothetical answer, why not follow some real, authoritative advice from the ACLU -----> Know Your Rights: What to Do If You’re Stopped by the Police.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but they must have reasonable articulable suspicion to detain you.
Nitpick for clarification:
An officer CANNOT pat you down solely for the all purpose justification of “Officer Safety”. The officer must have a reason to pat you down. During a Terry Stop, he can’t just, for no specific reason, decide to go ahead an pat you down.
In practice, it’s as simple as saying “The suspect was making furtive movements, so I patted him down.” That will fly in court. Who’s to say if he was or wasn’t?
But if the cop just says, “I have the right to pat him down for my safety” without saying what specific reason made him feel the need, or why he felt he was unsafe, it will not fly in court.
In the OP’s example, the officer may perform a pat down if he finds weapons or drugs on the guys friend. Finding contraband on one person in a group is reason to suspect possession by others in the group.
Correct. The officer must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that rises above the level of mere conjecture. The example given upthread of an officer detaining you because you refused to empty your pokets, taking you to the station, emptying your pockets anyway, and throwing you in a cell with a murderer isn’t a Terry stop based on reasonable suspicion, it’s a search incident to arrest, and an illegal arrest to boot. Anything they find in the arrestee’s pockets are fruit of an illegal search and inadmissable. I have defendants consenting to searches all the time that turn up copious amounts of drugs and always ask them why the heck they consented, and they often say “I thought if I didn’t, they’d just arrest me and find it anyway.” Yeah, they might have, but then the search would have been illegal.
These rights assume a lot though, don’t they?
Can’t cops just lie and say you did consent? It’s not like cops don’t/won’t lie. And who’s going to believe you over the cops? Certainly not most judges.
You could sue. Not a great option, but better than zero. If, for example, they were stopping only dudes of your race, and they were bringing you in every second day, the ACLU could become very interested.
Great link, btw. 
They can lie just like anyone can, but in my experience most don’t. They may color their testimony so as to be more favorable to the prosecution or engage in exaggeration, but most are ethical enough not to resort to outright fabrication and say you consented when you firmly refused. If nothing else they don’t want to screw up their credibility by getting caught in a lie.
ETA: Also, if it’s a traffic stop, they may be on camera. Cameras tend to keep people honest.
If asked to empty my pockets, I’d ask if that included the little triangular pocket in my jeans. Then I would ask if he knew what that pocket was supposed to be used for. Then I’d suggest we go on over to a favorite bar and see if anyone there knew what the little pocket was for. . .
On second thought, I’d politely keep my mouth shut and try to remember my attorney’s number.
Huh?