What part of "no" don't you understand?
The judge down in Tucson overseeing the criminal case against Portland Trail Blazer Damon Stoudamire has once again refused to throw out the evidence seized from the Blazer captain shortly before his arrest last summer. As you will recall, Damon was trying to walk through one of the airport's metal detectors carrying a sizeable quantity of marijuana wrapped in aluminum foil.
The judge ruled, quite sensibly, that officers could open up the tin foil to see what was in it without advising the suspect of his Miranda rights.
Damon, do yourself a favor on this one. Cop a plea, take your lumps, and get Steve Houze off the payroll. For a while, at least.
| Posted at 7:39 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (5)
Is that necessarily true? It's my understanding that the issue is the distinction between federal transportation officials, and the local police. The feds found it. They called the cops and handed it to them. The cops then opened it up.
The question is, what constitutes reasonable suspicion? That foil set off the metal detector? If there's not a legal justification the police can use to open the foil, then they have searched illegally. They were not there and thus have no reliable personal information on suspicion.
That's my sense of the case, anyway. I think another issue is that Damon tried to leave the area without going to his plane--he was not necessarily under detention; he simply was buzzed (hah!) while going through the detector, and potentially could have opted simply to waive his right to board the flight at that time.
In any case, considering that he's already won ONE illegal search case, I can't fault his legal team for making the argument.
Posted by torridjoe | March 12, 2004 8:31 PM
In this day and age, I would argue that one has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to anything carried on his or her person through an airport checkpoint.
Posted by Jack Bog | March 12, 2004 9:41 PM
which, it might fairly be argued, was not something Stoudamire accomplished--going through the checkpoint. :) Seriously, that there are conditions for flying, and that there is no expectation of privacy, makes perfect sense in terms of the flight contract. If you opt not to go through the checkpoint, what are your protections as a US citizen as opposed to an air traveler?
Posted by torridjoe | March 12, 2004 10:17 PM
I only know the facts as you stated them. With that said, airport searches are consensual (if you don't want to be searched, don't fly on a plane). Once the inspectors found the tinfoil, it was reasonable for them to open it, as it could have contained explosives or some other nasty. Finally, on these facts, Miranda has nothing to do with anything, as Miranda applies only to the use of *testimonial* evidence.
I agree that the fellow ought to just cop. It's a good thing that being stupid is not a crime, because if it were, he would have absolutely no defense.
Posted by Parkway Rest Stop | March 14, 2004 1:27 AM
Parkway--it wasn't the inspectors who opened it, it was the cops. And thus the distinction--under what rights did the cops examine the foil?
Posted by Torrid Joe | March 15, 2004 11:33 AM