{"id":1864,"date":"2012-02-16T13:03:59","date_gmt":"2008-03-11T05:32:17","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-03-11T05:32:17","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1864","title":{"rendered":"FL: Pulling out defendant’s underwear to look inside was not unreasonable, even in a public place, because he wore his pants to expose his underwear"},"content":{"rendered":"

Officers had probable cause to stop defendant based on predictive behavior from a CI that proved accurate. After the defendant was patted down, the officer sought and got permission from a supervisor to pull out the waistband of defendant’s underwear and look inside, where drugs were found. That search was not a strip search and was reasonable the way it was conducted. [This is based, in part, on the fact that the defendant wore his pants hanging down, already exposing his underwear to the public.] Jenkins v. State<\/a>, 978 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 2008):<\/p>\n

Based upon these findings, in our view nothing equivalent to a strip search occurred in the instant case. Rather, the search here qualifies as a “reach-in” search, where the suspect remains clothed during the search and the suspect’s genitals are not visible to onlookers. See United States v. Williams<\/em>, 477 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir.), cert. denied<\/em>, 128 S. Ct. 237 (2007). As described in the credible evidence, Officer Bonollo merely pulled back Jenkins’ boxer shorts, which were already exposed to public view, looked down into Jenkins’ buttocks area, viewed approximately two inches of the plastic bag protruding up from between Jenkins’ buttocks, and retrieved the bag. Logistically speaking, unless a civilian was standing immediately adjacent to Officer Bonollo, a highly unlikely possibility not supported by the evidence here, there is no way that he or she would have been able to view Jenkins’ buttocks. Thus, the contention that Jenkins was subject to an embarrassing and humiliating search in public is simply inconsistent with the facts as determined by the trial court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1864","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1864\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}