OK: Direction to empty pockets on service of writ of execution for cash was a reasonable search

Officers came to defendant’s bar with a writ of execution to levy on a judgment. It authorized seizure of cash on the premises or defendant’s person. When defendant was pulling cash from his pocket, a baggie of meth fell out. Officers called for a drug dog which alerted on defendant’s car. They got a search warrant and more was found. The search on the writ was legal because defendant had the opportunity to defend the civil case that led to its issuance. The search was reasonable. State v. Sittingdown, 2010 OK CR 22, 240 P.3d 714 (2010):

[*P13] Because a civil order or writ is court process, the resulting seizure’s constitutionality is subject to the “ultimate standard” of “reasonableness.” Soldal, 506 U.S. at 71, 113 S.Ct. at 549; quoting Camara, 387 U.S. at 539, 87 S.Ct. at 1736. In Soldal the Supreme Court noted that where officers were acting pursuant to a court order, a showing of unreasonableness in the execution of the civil process would be a “laborious task indeed.” Soldal, 506 U.S. at 71, 113 S.Ct. at 549.

[*P14] The seizure in the present case was reasonable. The seizure was conducted solely pursuant to the civil writ of execution. The writ has not been shown to be unreasonable on its face. No challenge was made to the writ in the District Court. Furthermore, the officer’s actions did not go outside the authority of the writ. The writ was executed as it was presented to the officer.

[*P15] The writ of execution authorized the officer to assume control and dominion over the contents of Appellee’s pockets. A writ of execution is a command to the officer, to whom it is directed, to collect the money specified in the writ from the goods and chattels of the debtor. …