{"id":6507,"date":"2012-02-16T15:15:41","date_gmt":"2012-01-06T08:55:52","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-01-06T08:55:52","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6507","title":{"rendered":"CA9: Full-body patdown for drugs at airport by consent could include groin area"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant arrived at SEA and paid cash for a last minute ticket to Anchorage on Alaska Airlines and had no luggage. The ticket agent called the police, and they met defendant at the gate and talked to him. He consented to a full-body pat down that produced 700 Oxycodone pills. Going to the groin area for the search was reasonable under the facts. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2012\/01\/05\/11-30030.pdf\">United States v. Russell<\/a>, 664 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2012):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The factual context is key to our decision. Bruch specifically advised Russell that he was looking for narcotics. After consenting to the search, Russell was more than cooperative. To facilitate the search, he lifted his arms to shoulder height and spread his legs. Russell could have objected either of the two times he gave verbal consent before the search, or while Bruch worked his way up from the ankles to the groin. See, e.g., <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=12159729668367462904&amp;q=424+F.3d+768&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">United States v. Sanders<\/a>, 424 F.3d 768, 776 (8th Cir. 2005) (granting a motion to suppress where the suspect consented to a search of his person but then withdrew consent by actively shielding his groin area from the officer\u2019s search). Indeed, Bruch purposely searched from the ankles up because \u201cit gives them an opportunity to say that they don\u2019t want the search &#8230; there is an opportunity to stop.\u201d Instead Russell said nothing and certainly did nothing to manifest any change of heart about his consent to search. He never objected, expressed any concern, nor did he revoke consent or call a halt to the search, nor did he complain to the officer after the fact.<\/p>\n<p>We hold that the search was reasonable. Narcotics are often hidden on the body in locations that make discovery more difficult, including the groin area. The search here did not extend inside the clothing. Finally, this case does not present a question of a body pat-down by an officer of the opposite gender. See, e.g., <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=3307928433544811637&amp;q=231+F.3d+1289&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Hudson v. Hall<\/a>, 231 F.3d 1289, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting as a significant factor that the searching officer was the same gender as the suspect); <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=8510667942054377470&amp;q=956+F.2d+295&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">United States v. Rodney<\/a>, 956 F.2d 295, 298 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (\u201cIn particular, we do not address situations where, unlike here, the officer and the suspect are of opposite sexes.\u201d). Not only would a reasonable person in Bruch\u2019s situation understand that the general consent for a narcotics search of the person included a pat-down of all areas of the body, including the groin area, Russell\u2019s unrestricted consent to the search and conduct during the search suggested nothing  different.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6507\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-6507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6507","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=6507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}