Supreme Court says marijuana cannot be used as evidence
Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) -- Marijuana found in a man's pocket during a traffic stop cannot be used as evidence against him because he did not consent to such a thorough search, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled.
The high court's unanimous decision Thursday upholds a magistrate judge's finding that a South Dakota Highway Patrol trooper violated Travis Labine's constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
The magistrate judge found that Labine had consented only to a pat-down search, which is used to discover any weapons, but the trooper exceeded the scope of that consent in searching pockets for objects not identified as possible weapons.
The Supreme Court said evidence from illegal searches can be suppressed when the benefits of deterring future illegal searches outweigh the social costs of lost evidence.
Labine was a passenger in a car stopped by Spearfish Police Department officers for speeding in a school zone on March 29, 2006, according to court documents. Spearfish Police Officer Matthew Symonds was writing a ticket for speeding when Highway Patrol Trooper Brian Swets walked up to the passenger side of the vehicle and began talking to those in the car.
The trooper said he smelled alcohol and burnt marijuana, and he asked Labine to get out of the car. Swets said he asked Labine for consent to "search his person," and Labine consented. The trooper felt outside Labine's pockets for sharp objects, but then found a bag containing less than 2 ounces of marijuana.
Labine and the Spearfish officer told a different version of the story, saying the trooper asked more than once if he could pat down Labine. Labine said he thought he was consenting only to a pat-down for weapons.
Magistrate Michelle K. Percy ruled that the marijuana could not be used as evidence because the trooper exceeded the scope of Labine's consent. The state did not provide sufficient evidence to show that Labine had consented to such a search, the magistrate said.
The Supreme Court agreed that the state did not prove that Labine's consent removed the need for a warrant before the search.
Prosecutors argued that the trooper did not consciously disregard Labine's rights against illegal search and seizure. The cost to society in losing evidence of a crime outweighs the need to deter officers from such searches, the state contended.
But the high court noted that the trooper repeatedly asked for consent only to a limited pat-down of Labine, but then proceeded to exceed the scope of that consent.
"Exclusion of the evidence deters police officers from `misunderstanding' the type of search that was consented to and then violating suspect's rights," Justice Richard W. Sabers wrote for the Supreme Court. "This deterrence outweighs the cost of lost evidence."
The high court's unanimous decision Thursday upholds a magistrate judge's finding that a South Dakota Highway Patrol trooper violated Travis Labine's constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
The magistrate judge found that Labine had consented only to a pat-down search, which is used to discover any weapons, but the trooper exceeded the scope of that consent in searching pockets for objects not identified as possible weapons.
The Supreme Court said evidence from illegal searches can be suppressed when the benefits of deterring future illegal searches outweigh the social costs of lost evidence.
Labine was a passenger in a car stopped by Spearfish Police Department officers for speeding in a school zone on March 29, 2006, according to court documents. Spearfish Police Officer Matthew Symonds was writing a ticket for speeding when Highway Patrol Trooper Brian Swets walked up to the passenger side of the vehicle and began talking to those in the car.
The trooper said he smelled alcohol and burnt marijuana, and he asked Labine to get out of the car. Swets said he asked Labine for consent to "search his person," and Labine consented. The trooper felt outside Labine's pockets for sharp objects, but then found a bag containing less than 2 ounces of marijuana.
Labine and the Spearfish officer told a different version of the story, saying the trooper asked more than once if he could pat down Labine. Labine said he thought he was consenting only to a pat-down for weapons.
Magistrate Michelle K. Percy ruled that the marijuana could not be used as evidence because the trooper exceeded the scope of Labine's consent. The state did not provide sufficient evidence to show that Labine had consented to such a search, the magistrate said.
The Supreme Court agreed that the state did not prove that Labine's consent removed the need for a warrant before the search.
Prosecutors argued that the trooper did not consciously disregard Labine's rights against illegal search and seizure. The cost to society in losing evidence of a crime outweighs the need to deter officers from such searches, the state contended.
But the high court noted that the trooper repeatedly asked for consent only to a limited pat-down of Labine, but then proceeded to exceed the scope of that consent.
"Exclusion of the evidence deters police officers from `misunderstanding' the type of search that was consented to and then violating suspect's rights," Justice Richard W. Sabers wrote for the Supreme Court. "This deterrence outweighs the cost of lost evidence."
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 3 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
brad wrote on May 7, 2007 5:28 PM:
Mike wrote on May 7, 2007 12:25 AM:
Rich Ross wrote on May 6, 2007 9:22 AM: