California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Morrongiello, 145 Cal.App.3d 1, 193 Cal.Rptr. 105 (Cal. App. 1983):
Once they had identified defendant as the "Steve Silver" referred to by their informant and discovered that his duffel bag probably contained cocaine the officers had essentially two choices: they could arrest defendant, book and incarcerate him and obtain a search warrant for the bag the next day; or they could detain defendant for a short period until Officer Stocks arrived with a warrant to search the bag then and there. They chose the least intrusive alternative. We do not find the officer's choice to have been unreasonable. Assuming defendant's bag had not contained cocaine (and the results of the search of his person and his room were also negative), he would have been free to go and the officers would have been free to pursue other activities. On the other hand, if the officers waited until the next day to search the bag, defendant would have spent the night in jail before being exonerated and the officers would have spent considerable time at public expense in following a false lead. Cf. United States v. Gibbons, supra, 607 F.2d at p. 1327 and Miller v. State (1980) 269 Ark. 341, 605 S.W.2d 430, 435, in which the need to expedite the investigation made the nighttime search reasonable.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.