Federal Court Suppresses Evidence After Unlawful Vehicle Search

A federal court in Tampa recently granted a motion to suppress evidence after finding that police lacked probable cause to arrest a driver and search his vehicle.

The case involved a very narrow Fourth Amendment question.

During a valid traffic stop, a sheriff’s deputy saw a small plastic bag containing two pills fall from the driver’s wallet.

When the deputy asked about the pills, the driver did not identify them. Instead, he placed the bag between the driver’s seat and the center console.

The deputy arrested the driver and searched the vehicle.

The question was:

Did seeing unidentified pills, combined with the driver’s attempt to conceal them, establish probable cause to believe the pills were illegal?

The federal court held that it did not.

The deputy admitted that he could not identify the pills as illegal drugs based on their appearance. He also acknowledged that pills are commonly possessed pursuant to lawful prescriptions.

Nothing about the appearance of the pills established that they were controlled substances.

The court recognized that the driver’s conduct was suspicious.

But reasonable suspicion and probable cause are different constitutional standards.

The circumstances may have justified further investigation. They did not, without more, establish probable cause to arrest the driver and conduct a warrantless search of his vehicle.

The court explained:

“The possession of unidentified pills – even when coupled with an attempt to conceal them – simply did not establish probable cause to believe Defendant was committing any criminal offense.”

Rather than conducting additional investigation to determine what the pills were, the deputy arrested the driver and searched the vehicle based on his observations alone.

The court concluded that the arrest was not supported by probable cause and the resulting warrantless vehicle search violated the Fourth Amendment.

The evidence discovered during the search was suppressed.

This decision illustrates an important principle in federal criminal cases:

Evidence discovered after a search cannot retroactively justify a search that lacked probable cause when it began.

The constitutional question is what the officer knew at the time the decision to arrest and search was made.

Federal criminal defense attorney Michael J. Petro represents individuals facing federal investigations and criminal charges involving unlawful searches, vehicle searches, search warrants, and motions to suppress evidence.