Which turned out to be successful. The opinion also contains this truly extraordinary recitation of facts:
Officer Greenberg removed Smith's belt, unbuttoned and unzipped Smith's pants and pulled them down a foot or so, then pulled the elastic waistband of Smith's underwear out away from his body and saw a large bag the size of a baseball sitting right on top of his penis.* Officer Greenberg retrieved the bag, which contained 12 smaller baggies of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. The officers placed Smith in a patrol car and transported him to the police station, where they conducted a more thorough strip search.
You know what this sounds like? "I'm a parolee in a small northern California town. I never thought anything like this would ever happen to me, but one day..." Only instead of leading towards a "happy ending," then the story takes a turn into Fourth Amendment territory.
Hat tip: Prof. Shaun Martin.
* At no point in the opinion does the officer describe having seen an unusual bulge in Smith's pants, whether caused by excitement at the sight of men in uniform or otherwise. The officer apparently made a grab for the defendant's junk "on a hunch." Perfectly legal, perfectly Constitutional.
Perhaps the police had gotten a tip from an informant that Smith carried drugs in that area, but did not reveal that fact because if Smith (or his confederates) knew there was an informant with that sort of knowledge, they could figure out who it was.
ReplyDeletePeter