Ep. #339: Does NCIC hit provide PC to search driver?

📌 There is a long line of cases from this and other circuits that an “NCIC hit,” although not definitive in terms of conviction, “has been routinely accepted in establishing probable cause for a valid arrest.” United States v. Hines, 564 F.2d 925, 927 (10th Cir.1977); see also Scull v. New Mexico, 236 F.3d 588, 599 (10th Cir.2000) (because the officials “believed they had the lawful authority to imprison [defendant] based on the NCIC hit,” defendant could not show that they “knew that they had no lawful authority” to imprison him for purposes of his false imprisonment claim); United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 411–12 (5th Cir.1998) (concluding that officers' knowledge, through NCIC, of outstanding warrant, along with a reasonable belief that the defendant was in the apartment, “sanctioned going into the apartment” to arrest him), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1112, 119 S.Ct. 887, 142 L.Ed.2d 786 (1999); Brooks v. George County, 84 F.3d 157, 167 n. 12 (5th Cir.1996) (noting that “NCIC printouts provide a reliable basis for probable cause to arrest”); United States v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880, 884 (2d Cir.1989) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer learned of out-of-state warrant after conducting a background check on NCIC, contacted out-of-state authorities to confirm warrant, and requested and received certified copy of warrant before arresting the defendant); United States v. Roper, 702 F.2d 984, 989 (11th Cir.1983) (finding probable cause to arrest where officer radioed NCIC and learned of warrant); United States v. McDonald, 606 F.2d 552, 553–54 (5th Cir.1979) (“While NCIC printouts are not alone sufficient [e]vidence to permit [c]onviction, the cases uniformly recognize that NCIC printouts are reliable enough to form the basis of the reasonable belief which is needed to establish probable cause for arrest.”) (footnote omitted); United States v. Davis, 568 F.2d 514, 516 (6th Cir.1978) (“An NCIC identification of a vehicle is sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest of one possessing it....”); United States v. Palmer, 536 F.2d 1278, 1283 (9th Cir.1976) (concluding that probable cause existed for the defendant's arrest based on information obtained from NCIC and other evidence suggesting that the defendant was, in fact, the suspect identified on NCIC).
- Case v. Kitsap Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 249 F.3d 921, 928 (9th Cir. 2001)

-----

✅ Drop a like and subscribe, thank you for your support! 🥰

🚨 Do have another roadside chat question? Send it here: https://www.bluetogold.com/show

Blue to Gold Training:
🔻Class Schedules - https://www.bluetogold.com/calendar
🔻On-demand Training - https://university.bluetogold.com/
🔻Free Legal Training Webinar - https://www.bluetogold.com/calendar?category=Webinar
🔻Book Store and Training Materials - https://www.bluetogold.com/store

Connect with us, learn us more. We keep our updates and news posted on social media:
🔻Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/bluetogold
🔻Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/bluetogold
🔻Twitter - https://twitter.com/bluetogold
🔻LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/bluetogold
🔻TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@bluetogoldtraining

#LawEnforcementTraining #PoliceTraining #LegalEducation