Checkpoint, Bulge, and the Shirt-Lift Search
At 10:20 p.m., officers man a marked checkpoint on a well-lit road with signs reading 'Police Checkpoint.' A motorcycle without a front plate passes. Officer Lim signals the rider, Mr. Tan, to stop. Tan is nervous, keeps his right hand near his waist, and a rectangular bulge shows under his shirt. Lim asks, 'What is that?' Tan says nothing. Lim orders Tan to lift his shirt. Tan does, revealing a loaded .38 revolver without a license. Lim immediately handcuffs Tan and says, 'You have the right to remain silent.' Tan replies, 'I don't want to answer. I want a lawyer.' No warrant was obtained. The station chief must decide whether to file a case for illegal possession of firearms, whether the revolver is admissible, and how to record the sequence. The checkpoint had no advanced intelligence about Tan. Lim's body camera was off. Two other officers observed the stop but did not hear the initial conversation.
1. Was the initial checkpoint stop lawful? Explain which facts help and which facts are missing.
Read the worked answer
The initial stop is likely lawful, but not because the checkpoint gives police unlimited search power. A checkpoint is valid when it is conducted for a legitimate purpose, is not arbitrary, and is carried out with reasonable safeguards. Here the checkpoint is marked, lighted, and signed, which reduces the risk of a hidden stop.
The motorcycle had no front plate. That is an observed traffic violation and gives an independent reason to stop the rider. The stop does not require a warrant.
Missing facts matter: the checkpoint's written plan, the selection method, the officers' assigned roles, and whether Tan was singled out arbitrarily. The absence of intelligence about Tan does not invalidate a routine checkpoint, but it limits what officers may do beyond the stop.
2. Was ordering Tan to lift his shirt a valid stop-and-frisk search? Apply the reasonable-suspicion test to the facts.
Read the worked answer
The facts support a limited pat-down for weapons, not necessarily a shirt-lift. Nervousness plus keeping a hand near the waist plus a visible rectangular bulge can amount to reasonable suspicion that Tan may be armed. A pat-down of the outer clothing is the usual protective step.
Ordering Tan to lift his shirt is more intrusive than a pat-down. It exposes the body to view and is closer to a search than a frisk. The prosecution would have to justify why the shirt-lift was necessary and how it was no broader than needed. If a pat-down would have revealed the weapon, the shirt-lift may be hard to defend.
There is also a consent issue. Tan lifted his shirt after an order, not after a clear request that he could refuse. The station chief should not describe the act as voluntary consent without evidence.
3. What should the station chief do about the arrest, Tan's invocation of counsel, and documentation of the evidence?
Read the worked answer
The station chief should treat the firearm as evidence with a chain-of-custody problem, not as an automatic conviction. Recommended steps:
- Record the exact sequence: stop for missing plate, observations, words used, the order to lift the shirt, the discovery, and the arrest.
- Preserve the firearm, magazine, rounds, and any images; document who handled each item and when.
- Note that the body camera was off and identify the two observing officers.
- Do not question Tan further after he says he wants a lawyer. Custodial interrogation must stop, and counsel must be provided if he wants one.
- The 'right to remain silent' warning came after the firearm was found. That does not cure an illegal search, but it matters for any statements.
- Refer the admissibility question to the prosecutor in writing. The chief should not promise that the case is airtight; the defense may move to suppress the firearm if the shirt-lift is found to exceed a valid frisk.
- If departmental policy requires a checkpoint log and body-camera use, correct the lapse and document why the camera was off.