Due Process

Bad news for drug mules these days. The Connecticut Supreme Court has expanded the permissible scope of a warrantless search of a motor vehicle following a routine traffic stop, granting greater latitude to cops whose instincts trigger a hunch that more is happening than a violation of the rules of the road.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects against unreasonable police intrusions into our privacy by requiring a judicial warrant prior to conducting a search. Through the years exceptions to the warrant requirement have been defined. One of the more troubling focuses on the clash between a citizen’s First Amendment rights to freely travel and a police officer acting on his instinct that more is afoot than a motor vehicle violation.

What is the extent of an officer’s power when he stops a motorist for a legitimate traffic offense? Does he have the power to demand the motorist exit the vehicle? Can he pat the driver down? Can he search the interior of the vehicle without a search warrant? Can he detain the motorist and eventually obtain consent to search the car?

Thanks to a guy named Jenkins the answers to these questions have become much clearer. Jenkins was observed illegally changing lanes and was promptly stopped by Detective Morgan who was in uniform. Jenkins produced a valid license and rental contract but his actions suggested to the cop that he was too nervous. Something else was up; at least that was what well honed police instincts suggested to Morgan. Jenkins was patted down for possible weapons but none were found. After Morgan completed the necessary inquiries he asked if Jenkins had anything illegal, and if he could search the car, to which Jenkins replied: “Go ahead and check. You can check if you want.”

One of the well recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement is consent. One who consents to a search cannot later complain that his constitutional rights were violated unless that consent was tainted by coercive police action or resulted from some other illegal police conduct.

Unfortunately for Jenkins stupidity is not a defense (if it was I would have a much more impressive won-loss record). Despite that fact that he was transporting significant quantities of heroin and cocaine this lummox called the cop’s bluff and was found to have validly consented.

That wasn’t the real import of this new decision. Jenkins argued that his motor vehicle stop was enlarged beyond the time that was reasonably necessary and that as a result it became an illegal detention. If he succeeded in that argument his consent would then have been viewed as the “fruit of the poisonous tree” a legal term of art meaning that the claimed illegal detention now tainted everything that came afterward.

Jenkins argued that the officer held on to his license and registration longer than required for a traffic ticket. He maintained that he should have been allowed to leave before Morgan finally asked him for permission to search, and that the additional questioning had nothing to do with his illegal lane changes. The Supremes disagreed, “[Q]uestioning during a routine traffic stop need not be carefully tailored to the initial purpose of the stop, so long as the stop’s overall duration is not ‘’measurably extended’ beyond the time necessary to accomplish the tasks attendant to that reason for the stop. . . . [W]here a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot . . . the officer may briefly stop the suspicious person and make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling his suspicions. . . .”

So Det. Morgan gets a gold star and Mr. Jenkins got 8 years in the grey bar hotel.

Rich Meehan is a senior partner in the law firm of Meehan, Meehan & Gavin, LLP, Bridgeport, Conn. For more information on Rich or his firm go to www.meehanlaw.com or www.ctdentalmalpracticelawyer.com, or e-mail Rich at rtm@meehanlaw.com