An officer observes a motorist's suspicious meeting with another motorist. The cars are parked legally in a residential area at 10:30 p.m. Upon seeing the police cruiser, the drivers of both cars drove away. The officer pulled over one of the drivers, Morris, for failing to use his turn signal. The officer stated he saw Morris reach down to the floor of his car. Upon seeing the movement, the officer told Morris to place his hands on the steering wheel. Morris began to place them on the wheel, but then reached quickly between his legs. The officer ordered Morris out of the car. As Morris was exiting the car, the officer noticed a metal pipe in the car.  The officer instructed Morris to walk to the rear of the car and put his hands on the trunk. Morris complied and the officer conducted a pat-down search. The officer felt no weapons. The officer then returned to the car and, with a flashlight, searched the passenger side and the front floor area.  The officer observed a car phone on the front floor area and a closed black plastic bag on the front passenger seat. The officer proceeded to open the bag and found what appeared to be cocaine, marijuana and related drug paraphernalia. The officer arrested Morris.

Under the controlling principles of Terry and Long, which would permit a warrantless search of an automobile in the absence of probable cause, did the facts of Morris' case satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard?

Compare the factually similar Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). Was there erratic driving at an excessive speed as in Long? Was Morris behaving suspiciously? How are the type of area the events occurred in and the time of day significant to your determination? Should the officer's pat down search and flashlight inspection of the car have allayed the reasonable officer's fears that the subject was dangerous and could gain immediate control of weapons?

Do the facts give rise to a Terry type of situation? After a pat down and initial search of the car, assumed to be justified, was a search of the closed bag necessary to protect the officer's safety?

Should the evidence be suppressed?

See Commonwealth v. Morris, 644 A.2d 721 (state? 1994).

Submitted by Mark Politan

Emory University School of Law

Answer

Based on Michigan v. Long, the evidence found in the bag should not be suppressed so long as the bag was large enough to contain a weapons.  The officers would have a reasonable fear for their safety considering the suspect already disobeyed the officers' commands and attempted to reach for a weapon once!  They cannot put him back in the car with a bag with unknown contents that may contain another weapon.  The suspect is no less dangerous because he is not under arrest.  According to the case:

      Search of passenger compartment of automobile, limited to those areas in which weapon may be   placed or hidden, is permissible if police officer possesses reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant officers in believing that suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons