RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A man convicted of possessing cocaine after a police officer found drugs by shining a light down the suspect’s pants should get a new trial because the search was unreasonable, a North Carolina appellate court ruled Tuesday.
The ruling erases a sentence of up to 14 years in prison for Timothy Stone, who was convicted on charges of drug possession and being a habitual felon.
- Traffic stop in 2002 in drug-dealing area.
- Consented to search but not flashlight-on-groin thing.
- Pill bottle of crack cocaine found in groin area.
“We conclude that a reasonable person in defendant’s circumstances would not have understood that he would be subjected to an inspection of his genitals,” Judge Linda McGee wrote in the majority opinion.
In the dissenting opinion, Judge Sanford Steelman wrote that Stone’s clothes weren’t removed such as in a strip search, which courts have earlier said requires probable cause or more specific consent from a suspect.
Officer, that's not drugs, and yes I am happy to see you...
Posted by: The DB | Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 06:09 PM
Was this a gay cop or what! Hey buddie I need to inspect your genitals!
To tack on to DB While your down there!
Posted by: Doc | Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 06:15 PM
Kinda freaky to be shinin a light checking out the dudes business
Posted by: The DB | Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 06:21 PM
I agree DB sounds kinda odd. Adds a new "light" on patting down a suspect.
Posted by: Doc | Wednesday, September 06, 2006 at 06:26 PM
Actually, I'd estimate that about 75% of drug suspects that I deal with hide drugs either in their groin, or in their rectum. Remember that next time you buy a bag of weed, that the guy selling it to you may have had that in his ass for half the day.
Posted by: W! | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 01:22 AM
W!......you just made me put my blunt out.
Posted by: Greg | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 03:02 AM
Ewww W! LOL
But yes, truth be told, over half of the people my boss and I represent had drugs hidden "anywhere" but their pockets.
Posted by: T :) | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 06:28 AM
Maybe he should've put it where the sun don't shine.
Posted by: Sandra | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 08:55 AM
I like the decision. If I tell a cop they can pat me down, I am not saying that he can inspect my genitals. If they hadnt overturned this case, it would have allowed for them to do that every time you give consent.
Posted by: openmind | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Illegal search. Nobody is going to agree to having a flashlight stuck down their pants. That's forcing an illegal search on someone and...you see what the outcome was. Sorry that's not legal.
If its out in the open, ok fine, probable cause, but in his boxers, I don't think so.
Guess since the cop couldn't find anything to make his stop fessible, he just decided to find something. Even if it meant looking under a man's...private parts. WatEver!!!! Yuck.
Posted by: All n A Days Work | Thursday, September 07, 2006 at 03:08 PM
I see this going down like this, the officer asked the man if he could search him the guy said yes, and durring the pat-down the officer discovered the bottle. I have to believe something tipped this officer off that the bottle was there. And bottom line for me is.... the bottle was there! If there were no drugs there, than sure, the officer should be repremanded for being a pervert.
Posted by: Jeff | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 09:51 AM
oh and DB..... good one.
Posted by: Jeff | Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 09:52 AM