Are the police allowed to search me if they receive a 911 call telling them that I am committing a crime?

Question

So just the other day I was with a friend and we locked our bikes at a creek overpass on the street, to the creek fencing. All I had was a small lock so it took us a while to figure out how to fit both bikes and the fence in the lock. In this time, someone (either walking by or in a nearby house) called 911 and said that we were climbing on the fence and attempting to break the lock. The 911 caller gave the police our descriptions. We never climbed the fence and only touched it to lock our bikes up. When a cop pulled up, he asked to search me. I said okay. He found a few permanent markers in my backpack and charged me with a misdemeanor, possession of vandalism tools. I am under 18. I'm wondering if he was allowed to search me in the first place and if what he did is legal. If there is any more info that would be useful, please let me know. Thanks.

Answer 1

well the 911 call gave them probable cause that you were about to commit a crime so that gives him the right to search you..vandalism must be a problem around that area, otherwise most cops would let you go after figuring out you were not doing anything.

Answer 2

He was allowed to search you because you consented to the search.

Never consent to a search.

Answer 3

yes, that is probable cause

Answer 4

The problem here is that you consented to the search and anything in your possession gets searched also.  So the Officer was in his right to search whatever possessions you had.

Answer 5

Possession of vandalism tools???!  What? Has there been a recent outbreak of drawing moustache's on buildings in your town??!   I'd fight the whole thing if i were you.  Be prepared - you may need receipts for the store where you bought the pens , when you sue them for providing tools of vandalism to minors.  LOL!

Answer 6

He asked you, and you said "yes", so duh, of course he is allowed to search you.

If you have said no, if he could articulate a reason to search you (Terry vs Ohio makes it easy), then he still would have been able to search. I don't need to "believe" the subjetc is armed, only articulate why he ""might" be...jeez

What he did was legal.

EDIT-Yes Terry vs Ohio allows a frisk for weapons, and if during that frisk for weapons evidence or contraband is found (like it was in this case) it is fine. The circumstances of this contact make it very easy for the officer to articulate the need to frisk.

Answer 7

You are missing the point of the laws of searches. None of the 4th amendment rules apply when you consent to a search, unless you told the officer to stop. But even in the case described above, he probably could have justified the search without your consent.

As for the poster above, Terry V. Ohio applies to a frisk for weapons, and NOT a full blown search. If the officer was to use the terry rationale, he would have to believe that criminal activity was afoot AND the subject is armed and poses a threat to the officer or others.