Some criminal defense strategies focus on the behavior of the person accused of breaking the law. Other times, the focus may be on the conduct of other parties. For example, the decisions made by law enforcement professionals could lead to unfair criminal charges or circumstances that put defendants at a marked disadvantage.
In scenarios where people can show that police officers conducted illegal searches, their defense attorneys may be able to exclude certain evidence from the criminal trial. Frisks or pat-down searches are among the most invasive police searches.
What rules apply to warrantless searches of a person who is not under arrest?
Officers need justification to search a person’s body
If police officers could simply stop and frisk anyone they encountered, their personal biases might lead to very unfair situations. Officers might target people who look a specific way or who live in certain neighborhoods.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a case previously related to stop-and-frisk searches. The ruling has since restricted stop-and-frisk encounters, and Michigan state policies reaffirm the federal standard for such searches.
Police officers can ask for consent to search a person’s body. Without permission, they can only search a person when they have reasonable suspicion that they possess a dangerous weapon. Stop-and-frisk searches conducted to look for drugs or other contraband may constitute a violation of an individual’s rights.
People arrested after an encounter with law enforcement in public spaces may need to discuss the situation with a criminal defense attorney. Challenging police officer conduct could help eliminate key evidence and expand criminal defense options.