{"id":4942,"date":"2011-03-01T07:32:37","date_gmt":"2010-11-29T00:10:04","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-27T14:07:55","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4942","title":{"rendered":"FL2: One person who provided drugs from another was not acting as agent of police when asked for them; officers did not know about the other when asking"},"content":{"rendered":"

When the officer asked C.C. for the marijuana he had, the officer did not know that it was in C.D.M.\u2019s possession. Thus, C.C. was not enlisted as an agent of the police. State v. C.D.M.<\/a>, 50 So. 3d 659 (Fla. App. 2d DCA 2010):<\/p>\n

Finally, the fact that C.C. testified that he felt obligated to cooperate with Deputy Vinson did not transform him into an agent of the police. In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 488, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1971), the Supreme Court held that, even though a witness may have felt obliged to cooperate, \u201cit is no[t] part of the policy underlying the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to discourage citizens from aiding to the utmost of their ability in the apprehension of criminals.\u201d In holding that the witness was not acting as an agent of the police in that case, even though she may have felt obliged to cooperate, the Court stated that the evidence could only be excluded if \u201csome type of unconstitutional police conduct occurred.\u201d Id. We conclude that Deputy Vinson\u2019s conduct in asking C.C. if he was \u201cwilling to voluntarily give\u201d up the marijuana was proper and in no way coercive. See State v. Martissa, 18 So. 3d 49, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (\u201cDuring a traffic stop an officer may ask if a person is in possession of a weapon or drugs.\u201d).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was on probation with a search condition, so the search of his place was valid. Brown v. State<\/a>, 307 Ga. App. 99, 704 S.E.2d 227 (2010).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s patdown was justified by a stop based on reasonable suspicion from a radio broadcast of a fellow officer. Thomas v. State<\/a>, 8 A.3d 1195 (Del. 2010).*<\/p>\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-4942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4942","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=4942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4942\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}