It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In many (although not all) of the situations described below, an officer may act without obtaining a warrant. The courts have long expressed a preference, how ever, for the use of both arrest and search warrants—even in situations where a warrant is not required.
originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: 727Sky
I dunno about that, you saying you would rather get felt up by some jumped up guy than have someone target your financial record? I mean... they're both bad right enough... But I know what I'd prefer if forced to choose XD
originally posted by: kicked
You are no longer protected by the constitution.
Actually, you are. Unless you're just going to allow them to take away your rights by an unlawful search. No one in that restaurant had to comply with a search.
originally posted by: Donkey_Dean
a reply to: roadgravel
No, I think pockets are fair game.
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), was a 1993 Supreme Court of the United States case. Decided June 7, 1993, the Court unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.
By a 6-to-3 vote, however, the court held that the officer in this case had gone beyond the limits of a lawful patdown search before he could determine that the object was contraband, making the search and the subsequent seizure unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.