Can police search my brassier?

Answer 1

You are asking the wrong question. You should ask: "How can I stop him ?

Answer 2

Yes and no! But they do need a search warrant!

A warrant is not necessary for a search or seizure under certain circumstances. Officers may search and seize objects that are in "plain view." Before the search and seizure, however, the officers must have probable cause to believe that the objects are contraband.

Similarly, "open fields"—pastures, open water, woods and other such areas—may be searched without warrant, on the basis that the individuals conducting activities therein had no reasonable expectations of privacy. Contrary to its apparent meaning, the "open fields" doctrine has been expanded to include almost any open space other than the land immediately surrounding a domicile (for instance, in Oliver v. United States 466 U.S. 170 (1984), the police ignored a "no trespassing" sign, trespassed onto the suspect's land without a warrant, followed a path several hundred yards, and discovered a field of marijuana. The Supreme Court ruled that no search had taken place. See also: open fields doctrine.

There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement-for instance, if an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may destroy evidence, he might be permitted to seize the evidence without a warrant.

The Supreme Court has also held that individuals in automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, because vehicles generally do not serve as residences or repositories of personal effects. Vehicles may not be randomly stopped and searched; there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Items in "plain view" may be seized; areas that could potentially hide weapons may also be searched. With probable cause, police officers may search any area in the vehicle. They may not, however, extend the search to the vehicle's passengers without probable cause to search those passengers.

Under common law, a police officer could arrest an individual (arrests constitute seizures, at least for the purpose of the Fourth Amendment) if that individual committed a misdemeanor in the officer's presence, or if the officer had probable cause to believe that the individual committed a felony. The Supreme Court has applied the common law rule in American jurisprudence. The officer in question must have had probable cause before making the arrest; evidence discovered after the arrest may not be retroactively used to justify the arrest.

The person must also be under arrest to allow a search to be relevant. A person merely detained, such as someone pulled over for a traffic stop, is not "under arrest"; once the traffic ticket is written there is no right to search without permission as no further search could possibly provide any additional evidence regarding the stop. A search without permission after a speeding ticket was written that discovered marijuana was determined to be unlawful under these conditions. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 US 113 (1998)

Another common law rule—that permitting searches incident to an arrest without warrant—has been applied in American law. The justification for such a search is that the arrested individual must be prevented from destroying evidence or using a weapon against the arresting officer. In Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 (1948), the Supreme Court held that "a search or seizure without a warrant as an incident to a lawful arrest has always been considered to be a strictly limited right. It grows out of the inherent necessities of the situation at the time of the arrest. But there must be something more in the way of necessity than merely a lawful arrest." In United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950), the Court reversed its previous ruling, holding that the officers' opportunity to obtain a warrant was not germane to the reasonableness of a search incident to an arrest. The decision suggested that any area within the "immediate control" of the arrestee could be searched, but it did not define the term. In deciding Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), the Supreme Court elucidated its previous decisions. It held that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the officer to search the arrestee for weapons and evidence. Similarly, it was held that it is reasonable for the officer to search the area within the arrestee's immediate control, that is, the area from which the defendant may gain access to a weapon or evidence. A search of the room in which the arrest is made is therefore permissible, but the same is not true of a search of other rooms, as the arrestee would not probably be able to access weapons or evidence in those rooms at the time of arrest.

Answer 3

A police officer can frisk anyone to ensure their safety and the safety of others without search warrants, probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or arrest. If during the frisk, illegal substances or information relating to illegal activity is discovered, then it falls under the "plain view" doctrine. Male police can used certain techniques to search females to avoid any hint of misuse of power. All Police Dept have standard procedures to deal with opposite sex searches. Abuse can be reported to Internal Affairs.

Answer 4

Yes, they can, although usually a female officer needs to do it.

They do not need a search warrant. They can do a pat down at any time they are involved to secure the scene and make certain their are no weapons available, and if you're placed in custody (arrested) they can search you completely incident to the arrest, or if they have probable cause.

Answer 5

Most of these people are wrong. Only a WOMAN police officer can search you(hopefully you are a woman) If this does not take place then the search becomes void. My personal advice is...DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ILLEGAL ON YOU!

Answer 6

If you did something that warrants a pat down search of your person then yes they can. And it depends on the departments protocol but a male cop could search you if he has another cop with him.

Answer 7

If they have search warrant; OR if they have probable cause for any legal reason to search you.

This would include them deeming you a threat, or as part of an arrest for any reason.

They usually try to have a policewoman do that intimate searching, to avoid nasty criminal fiends who commit crimes, then file sex abuse or harassment charges.

Answer 8

Yes. They want to make sure you dont have a gun. But if theyre groping you or something, file a report. If you didnt kill anyone or something, and your just going in to do your weekends or sumthin, they can only do a pat search.

Answer 9

it depensds on if the officer is male and female and on what you did. and if a male officer call a women jailer then yes and only in the private. orthey will take you t the jail and have a female officer search you bra

Answer 10

If they have reason to believe you're hiding something illegal or have committed a crime, or they're frisking you as they arrest you.
Freak them out by thanking them after they pat you down.

Answer 11

No search warrant needed, but, they must have probable cause that you are concealing something, and it has to be a woman..