In another small victory for the Fourth Amendment, the South Dakota Supreme Court reversed a conviction for meth possession because Rapid City police improperly seized and searched a man.
According to the facts laid out in State v. Kaline, Rapid City police were outside a house whose owner had asked that law enforcement remove her son and another woman. It was after 1:30 a.m. Two other men came out the back door. The police “immediately approached the men, ordered them to the ground, and placed them in handcuffs.” The police then asked one of the men, Gene Kaline, if they could search his pockets. Kaline, on the ground, in cuffs, in the dark, figured he was in no position to argue with the cops. They found three bags of meth, and of course, that’s a felony.
It turns out Kaline had grounds to argue that night. The state had no warrant, and our Supreme Court said the police had no grounds for a “Terry stop,” in which police “may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest”:
…the question is whether Officer Lewellen had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting Kaline was engaged in criminal activity. Id. at ___, 134 S. Ct. at 1687. Here, the State identifies no such basis. The homeowner did not allege that the occupants of the home were committing a crime, nor was Kaline ever charged with a trespassory crime. The officers did not observe Kaline engaging in any suspicious behavior. Indeed, Officer Lewellen himself testified that at the time Kaline was seized, handcuffed, and searched, Officer Lewellen had no reason to believe Kaline had committed any crime. Because the State has failed to identify a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, Kaline’s search and seizure cannot be justified under Terry [opinion, State v. Kaline, 2018.07.11, pp. 5–6].
So even when you’re on the ground, in cuffs, if the officers have improperly stopped you, you can still refuse to be searched. More easily said than done… and that appears to have influenced the Supreme Court’s further ruling that Kaline’s apparent consent did not excuse this unjustified search, since “the record does not indicate that Kaline was aware of his right to refuse consent.”
Check that out: in this case, Kaline’s ignorance of the law turns out to be an excuse. But now we should all know: the police can’t illegally stop and arrest us and then scare us into letting them conduct an illegal search.
It can be hard to celebrate a win for the Fourth Amendment when it results in a meth user (and a Nebraska bail jumper to boot!) escaping the long arm of the law. But that long arm can’t reach out and grab anyone it wants; the police have to follow the law, too.
I think possession/injestion is a felony in SD, one of only a few states (’cause we are tuff on crime!) What we really are is ignorant. Granted meth is apparently hideous, dangerous, like opioids which can be fatal. I wouldn’t know. But isn’t it obvious that a law against a substance humans use to change themselves is a social or mental health problem. Jail is a simple, ineffective “solution” to a very complex human condition. So we should all be glad the constitution prohibits law enforcement from exacerbating the mess of drug/alcohol use/abuse and addiction. Let’s spend money solving the social problem, whatever it actually turns out to be, rather than the billions incurred to everyone by criminalizing poorly understood behavior/disease/poverty. This is not a macho thing; rather a medical/scientific thing that might be understandable.
We also know that asserting rights while being arrested can and often is, fatal, as in “Black Lives Matter”. That is often not the time, the moment of arrest, for a reasonable discussion. So knowing, or not knowing one can refuse a search of one’s person, is really superfluous. Maybe if MIRANDA readings included such a right of refusal?
I applaud this decision by the SDSC. This is truly policing 101. No brainer.
I hope that Rapid City police chief Jegaris will look at his training program/trainers and ask the obvious question. Did you not cover this in the academy? Terry stops are what officers learn about in the first few week of an academy. This was a total blunder. This wan’t even a close call.
Memo to wingnuts- be sure to get rid of Miranda Rights as it is such a burden on officers that handcuffed and prone suspects could easily flee while you Are reaching for their”rights” card.
Doesn’t Miranda apply to custodial interrogation? Iirc, Schneckloth vs. Bustamante (sp?) said police don’t need to advise a person they have a right to refuse a search if that person is not in custody, but said the same wouldn’t likely hold true if that person was in custody (which the people here clearly were). It feels like a weird crossroads of Terry, Miranda, and Schneckloth but I am not sure if there is any directly on point Supreme Court precedent without reading the opinion here.