CASES 13 – 23
FAST FACT
13. PEOPLE v GERENTE – “MARIJUANA LEAVES OBTAINED THROUGH LAWFUL WARRANTLESS ARREST, ADMISSIBLE”
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in admitting the marijuana leaves
as evidence
Facts: Appellant was found guilty of violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, and of Murder.
Following a report of a mauling incident, patrolman of the
Valenzuela Police Station went to the district hospital where the
victim was brought. The victim was dead on arrival, caused by
massive fracture of the skull. The patrolman together with police
officers proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident
took place, where they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a
hollow block, and two roaches of marijuana. Edna Reyes, the
prosecution witness, told them that she saw the killing, and
pointed to appellant as one of the three men who murdered the
victim.
The policemen proceeded to the house of appellant who was
then sleeping. They introduced themselves as policemen and
asked him to come out of the house. Patrolman found a coin
purse in his pocket with dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil.
They were sent to the NBI, which found them to be marijuana.
The trial court rendered a decision finding appellant guilty of
violation of RA 6425. He appeled contending that the trial court
erred in admitting the marijuana leaves as evidence in violation of
his constitutional right not to be subject to illegal search and
seizure, for the dried marijuana leaves were seized from him in
the course of a warrantless arrest.
14. UMIL v RAMOS – “SUBVERSION A CONTINUING CRIME, WARRANTLESS ARREST JUSTIFIED”
Issue: W/N the following warrantless arrests are justified
Facts: This is a consolidated case of 8 petitions of habeas corpus
assailing the validity of arrests and searches made by the military
on petitioners, who were charged for being members of NPA.
Intelligence Operations of CAPCOM received confidential
information about a member of NPA being treated for gunshot
wound at St. Agnes Hospital. Upon verification, it was found that
Ronnie Javelon (as appeared in the records) is actually Rolando
Dural, a member of the NPA responsible for the killing of 2
CAPCOM soldiers the day before. Rolando was positively
identified by eyewitnesses. He was then referred to the Caloocan
City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed with the
RTC an information charging him with double murder with assault
upon agents of persons in authority. A charge for violation of the
Anti-Subversion Act was also filed against him.
Dural was not arrested while in the act of shooting, nor was he
arrested after the commission of the offense. Seemingly, his
arrest without warrant is unjustified.
The 7 other petitioners were arrested based on confidential
information received by the authorities.
DOCTRINE
NO. The search of appellant’s person and the seizure of marijuana leaves in his
possession were valid because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest.
(See par. a and b of Sec.5 Rule 113 of the RRC)
The policemen arrested Gerente only some 3 hours after Gerente and his
companions had killed the victim. Since the policemen had personal knowledge
of the violent death and of the facts indicating that Gerente and two others had
killed the victim, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had
postponed his arrest until they could obtain a warrant, he would have fled the law
as his two companions did.
The search conducted was likewise lawful because it was made as an incident to
a valid arrest. (See Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the RRC)
Rationale of a lawful warrantless arrest: To hold that no criminal can, in any
case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his crime without
a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extend, at the mercy of the
shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their
escape in many instances.
YES. Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA. Subversion, being a
continuing offense, the arrest of Dural without warrant is justified as it can be
said that he was committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of rebellion,
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or
offenses in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct
assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes.
The arrests were not fishing expeditions but a result of an in-depth surveillance
of NPA safe houses pinpointed by none other than members of the NPA
themselves.
With all these facts and circumstances existing before, during and after the
arrests, no prudent man can say that it would have been better for the military
agents not to have acted at all and made any arrest. That would have been an
unpardonable neglect of official duty and a cause for disciplinary action against
the peace officers involved. For, one of the duties of law enforcers is to arrest
lawbreakers in order to place them in the hands of executive and judicial
authorities upon whom devolves the duty to investigate the acts constituting the
alleged violation of the law and to prosecute and secure the punishment therefor.
An arrest is therefore in the nature of an administrative measure. The power to
arrest without warrant is without limitation as long as the requirements of Section
5, Rule 113 are met. This rule is founded on an overwhelming public interest in
peace and order in our communities.
INot evidence of guilt, but "probable cause" is the reason that can validly compel
the peace officers, in the performance of their duties and in the interest of public
order, to conduct an arrest without warrant.
15. PEOPLE v SUCRO – “SELL OF MARIJUANA SEEN AT A DISTANCE, WARRANTLESS ARREST JUSTIFIED”
Issue: W/N the search and arrest were justified
Facts: Station commander of INP gathered information that
Sucro was selling Marijuana. He instructed a member of the
INP to monitor the activities of appellant. As planned, INP
member positioned himself near the house of appellant,
where he saw him entering the chapel and taking something
from the compartment of a cart inside the chapel and handed
it to a buyer. Appellant went back to the chapel and came out
again with marijuana which he gave to a group of persons. It
was at this instance that INP member reported the activity.
During the third transaction, INP member intercepted
appellant and the buyer. Buyer threw something to the ground
which turned out to be a tea bag of marijuana. Upon arrest,
19 more sticks and 4 tea bags of marijuana were found, as
verified by the crime laboratory.
Appellant contends that his arrest was illegal as there was
sufficient time for the police to apply for a search and arrest
warrants considering that the information was received two
days before his arrest.
16. PEOPLE v RODRIGUEZA – “BUY-BUST IMPROPERLY CARRIED OUT, VIOLATES SEC. 2”
Issue: W/N appellants’ right against unreasonable search and
seizure was violated
Facts: NARCOM agents staged a buy-bust operation, after
gaining information that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of
prohibited drugs in Tagas, Albay. The participating agents
were given money treated with ultraviolet powder. One of the
agents went to said location, asked for a certain Don.
Thereafter, the Don, herein accused, met with him and “a
certain object wrapped in a plastic” later identified as
marijuana was given in exchange for P200. The agent went
back to headquarters and made a report, based on which, a
team was subsequently organized and a raid was conducted
in the house of the father of the accused. During the raid, the
NARCOM agents were able to confiscate dried marijuana
leaves and a plastic syringe among others. There was
no authorizationby any search warrant. The accused was
found positive of ultraviolet powder. The lower court,
considering the evidences obtained and testimonies from the
prosecution, found him guilty of violating the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
17. GO Y TAMBUNTING v CA – “ARREST BASED ON TESTIMONY, NOT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, VIOLATES SEC. 2”
Issue: W/N a lawful warrantless arrest had been effected by
the San Juan Police in respect of petitioner
Facts: Rolito Go while traveling in the wrong direction on a
one-way street, nearly bumped Eldon Maguan’s car. Go
alighted from his car, shot Maguan and left the scene. A
security guard at a nearby restaurant was able to take down
petitioner’s car plate number. The police arrived shortly
thereafter at the scene of the shooting. A manhunt ensued.
Six days after the police launched a manhunt for Go,
petitioner, accompanied by two (2) lawyers, presented himself
before the San Juan Police Station to verify news reports that
he was being hunted by the police. The police detained him
then and filed a complaint against him for frustrated homicide,
which was later modified to murder, since the victim Maguan
died of his gunshot wound.
YES. An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within
the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees
the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and
proceeds at once to the scene thereof.
INP member, within a distance of 2 meters, saw appellant conduct his nefarious
activity. Anent the second requirement, the fact that the buyer was caught throwing
marijuana stick, and when confronted readily admitted the same, clearly indicates
that appellant had just sold the Marijuana stick to the buyer, and therefore, had just
committed an illegal act of which the police officers had personal knowledge.
Police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when
it had earlier conducted surveillance activities of the accused. On the other hand, the
failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their
knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements
for the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that probable cause
existed.
YES. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to
trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. Applied to the case at bar, the term
in flagrante delicto requires that the suspected drug dealer must be caught
redhanded in the act of selling marijuana or any prohibited drug to a person acting or
posing as a buyer. In the instant case, however, the procedure adopted by the
NARCOM agents failed to meet this qualification that the suspected drug dealer
must be caught red-handed in the act of selling marijuana. Based on the very
evidence of the prosecution, after the alleged consummation of the sale of dried
marijuana leaves, CIC Taduran immediately released appellant Rodrigueza instead
of arresting and taking him into his custody. This act of CIC Taduran, assuming
arguendo that the supposed sale of marijuana did take place, is decidedly contrary
to the natural course of things and inconsistent with the aforestated purpose of a
buy-bust operation. It is rather absurd on his part to let appellant escape without
having been subjected to the sanctions imposed by law. It is, in fact, a dereliction of
duty by an agent of the law.
The raid conducted by the NARCOM agents in the house of Jovencio Rodrigueza
was not authorized by any search warrant. It does not appear, either, that the
situation falls under any of the aforementioned cases. Hence, appellant's right
against unreasonable search and seizure was clearly violated. The NARCOM agents
could not have justified their act by invoking the urgency and necessity of the
situation because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the place
had already been put under surveillance for quite some time. Had it been their
intention to conduct the raid, then they should, because they easily could, have first
secured a search warrant during that time.
We do not believe that the warrantless "arrest" or detention of petitioner in the
instant case falls within the terms of Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the shooting of Maguan. The
arresting officers obviously were not present, within the meaning of Section 5(a), at
the time petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the "arrest" effected six
(6) days after the shooting be reasonably regarded as effected "when [the shooting
had] in fact just been committed" within the meaning of Section 5 (b).
Moreover, none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal knowledge" of facts
indicating that petitioner was the gunman who had shot Maguan. The information
upon which the police acted had been derived from statements made by alleged
eyewitnesses to the shooting -- one stated that petitioner was the gunman; another
was able to take down the alleged gunman's car's plate number which turned out to
be registered in petitioner's wife's name. That information did not, however,
constitute "personal knowledge." It is thus clear to the Court that there was no lawful
warrantless arrest of petitioner within the meaning of Section 5 of Rule 113.
18. POSADAS v CA – “WARRANTLESS ARREST BASED ON SUSPICION, NOT LAWFUL”
Issue: W/N the search on the person of petitioner is a valid
warrantless search
Facts: While conducting a surveillance, the two policemen
spotted petitioner carrying a “buri” bag and acting
suspiciously. He attempted to flee when the policemen
approached him and identified themselves but his attempt
was thwarted. Found inside the “buri” bag were a firearm,
smoke grenade and ammunitions. Petitioner failed to show
the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and
ammunitions found in his possession. He was subsequently
prosecuted for and found guilty of illegal possession
of firearms and ammunitions
Petitioner argues that there being no lawful arrest or search
and seizure, the items which were confiscated from the
possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence
against him. SolGen justifies the warrantless search under
Sec. 12 of Rule 126 which states that a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything used as proof of a commission of an offense without
a search warrant. Solicitor General argues that when the two
policemen approached the petitioner, he was actually
committing or had just committed the offense of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions in the presence of
the police officers and consequently the search and seizure of
the contraband was incidental to the lawful arrest in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure.
19. PEOPLE v MENGOTE – “LOOKING SIDE TO SIDE AND HOLDING ABDOMEN NOT SINISTER ACTS”
Issue: W/N appellant’s right to unreasonable search and
seizure was violated
Facts: A telephone call was by Western Police district that
here were three suspicious-looking persons at the corner of
Juan Luna and North Bay Boulevard in Tondo Manila. A
surveillance team of plainclothesmen was dispatch to the
place. They saw two men “looking from side to side” one of
whom is holding his abdomen. They approached these
persons and identified themselves as policemen, whereupon
the two tried to run away but were unable to escape because
the other lawmen had surrounded them. The suspects were
then searched. One of them, who turned out to be the
accused was found with a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson
revolver with six live bullets in the chamber. His companion
had a fan knife. The weapons were taken from them.
The Solicitor General submits that the actual existence of an
offense was not necessary as long as Mengote's acts created
a reasonable suspicion on the part of the arresting officers
and induced in them the belief that an offense had been
committed and that the accused-appellant had committed it.
NO. We disagree with the SolGen. At the time the peace officers in this case
identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee they
did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the offense of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected that he was hiding
something in the buri bag. They did now know what its contents were. The said
circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant.
However, there are many instances where a warrant and seizure can be effected
without necessarily being preceded by an arrest, foremost of which is the "stop and
search" without a search warrant at military or police checkpoints, the
constitutionality or validity of which has been upheld by this Court
Thus, as between a warrantless search and seizure conducted at military or police
checkpoints and the search thereat in the case at bar, there is no question that,
indeed, the latter is more reasonable considering that unlike in the former, it was
effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the
petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a
probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the
right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same.
YES. Par. (c) of Section 5 is obviously inapplicable as Mengote was not an escapee
from a penal institution when he was arrested. We therefore confine ourselves to
determining the lawfulness of his arrest under either Par. (a) or Par. (b) of this
section.
Paragraph A
At the time of the arrest in question, the accused-appellant was merely "looking from
side to side" and "holding his abdomen," according to the arresting officers
themselves. There was apparently no offense that had just been committed or was
being actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their presence.
These are certainly not sinister acts. And the setting of the arrest made them less so,
if at all. It might have been different if Mengote had been apprehended at an ungodly
hour and in a place where he had no reason to be, like a darkened alley at 3 o'clock
in the morning. But he was arrested at 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded street
shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion. He was not
skulking in the shadows but walking in the clear light of day. There was nothing
clandestine about his being on that street at that busy hour in the blaze of the
noonday sun.
Paragraph B
The prosecution has not shown that at the time of Mengote's arrest an offense had in
fact just been committed and that the arresting officers had personal knowledge of
facts indicating that Mengote had committed it. All they had was hearsay information
from the telephone caller, and about a crime that had yet to be committed.
20. MALACAT y MANDAR v CA – “EYES MOVING VERY FAST AND MERELY STANDING NOT REASONABLE ENOUGH”
Issue: W/N the search and arrest
were valid
Facts: Petitioner was arrested for
having in his possession a hand
grenade after he was searched by
a group of policemen when he was
said to be acting suspiciously.
According to the policemen, he
was hanging around Plaza
Miranda with his eyes moving fast
together with other Muslim-looking
men. When the policemen
approached the group of men, they
scattered in all directions which
prompted the police to give chase
and petitioner was then
apprehended and a search was
made on his person.
He was then convicted under PD
1866 in the lower court. Hence, the
present petition.
Respondent’s argument - officers
had to act in haste as petitioner
and his companions were acting
suspiciously, considering the time,
place and reported cases of
bombing.
Petitioner’s argument - that the
warrantless arrest was invalid due
to absence of any of the conditions
provided for in Sec.5 Rule 113.
Petitioner cites similarities of his
case and People v Mangote.
21. PEOPLE v AMMINUDIN – “TWO DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM INFORMANT SUFFICIENT TO OBTAIN WARRANT”
Issue: W/N the search and arrest
were lawful
Facts: Having earlier received a tip
from an informer identifying the
accused by name who was on
board a vessel bound for Iloilo City
and was carrying marijuana, the
PC officers simply accosted him,
inspected his bag and finding what
looked like marijuana leaves, took
him to their headquarters for
investigation. The two bundles of
suspect articles were taken to the
NBI laboratory for examination,
and were verified as marijuana
leaves. An information for violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act
was filed against him and he was
eventually convicted.
NO. (Reasons stated below)
Side note: Even assuming that petitioner admitted possession of the grenade during his custodial investigation
by police officer, such admission was inadmissible in evidence for it was taken in palpable violation of Sec.
12(1) and (3) of Art. III (right to remain silent). The custodial investigation was conducted the day following his
arrest, without any lawyer present and no PAO lawyer was available. Even if petitioner consented to the
investigation, the waiver was invalid as it was not in writing, neither was it executed in the presence of counsel.
A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Sec.5(a) has been denominated as one “in
flagrante delicto”, while that under Sec. 5(b) has been described as “hot pursuit” arrest. Turing to valid
warrantless searches, they are limited to the following:
(1) Customs searches
(2) Search of moving vehicles
(3) Seizure of evidence in plain view
(4) Consent searches
(5) Search incidental to a lawful arrest
(6) Stop and frisk
Search incidental to a lawful arrest
The trial court confused the concepts of a stop and frisk and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. These two
differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected. In a search incidental to a
lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is
question in large majority of these cases, whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a
search. In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made – the
process cannot be reversed. Here, there could have been no valid in flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest
preceding the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of the arresting officer or an overt
physical act on the part of petitioner indicating that a crime had just been, was being, or was going to be
committed.
Stop and frisk
It is a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. While probable cause is not required to conduct a
stop and frisk, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate it. A genuine reason must
exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
detained has weapons concealed about him.
Two-fold interest of a stop and frisk:
(1) The general interest of effective crime prevention
(2) More pressing interest of safety and self-preservation
Reasons why the stop and frisk was invalid:
(1) Yu’s claim that petitioner was a member of the alleged bombing group is neither supported by any
police report or record nor corroborated by any other police officer who allegedly chased that group.
This likewise diminishes the probability that a genuine reason existed as to arrest and search
petitioner.
(2) There was nothing in petitioner’s behavior or conduct which could have reasonably elicited even
mere suspicion other than his eyes were moving very fast. Petitioner and companions were merely
standing at the corner and were not creating any commotion.
(3) There was at all no ground, probable or otherwise, to believe that petitioner was armed with a deadly
weapon.
NO. The PC officers had no warrant when they arrested Aminnudin and seized the bag he was carrying. Their
only justification was the tip they had earlier received from a reliable and regular informer who reported to them
that Aminnudin was arriving in Iloilo by boat with marijuana. Their testimony varies as to the time they received
the tip, one saying it was two days before the arrest, another two weeks and a third "weeks before June 25."
In the case at bar, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal
determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the government, the
accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed or had just been
committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Even expediency
could not be invoked to dispense with the obtention of the warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca, for
example. Here it was held that vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for
violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
before the warrant can be secured. The present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting
declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have
obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin.
The search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless
arrest did not come under the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was
also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby was inadmissible.
22. PEOPLE v MALMSTEDT – “BULGE ON WAIST AND REFUSAL TO PRESENT ID DURING ROUTINE CHECK, PROBABLE CAUSE”
Issue: W/N the search and arrest were legal
Facts: Due to persistent reports that vehicles coming from
Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited
drugs, a temporary checkpoint was set up for the
checking of all vehicles coming from the Cordillera
Region. During their inspection of a bus, one of the
officers noticed a bulge, suspected to be a gun, on
accused’s waist. The bulging object turned out to be a
pouch bag and found therein hashish, a derivative of
marijuana. Accused was carrying two travelling bags,
each containing a teddy bear with bulges inside which did
not feel like foam stuffing. The accused was arrested,
tried and convicted for violation of RA 6425, as amended.
23. LUZ y ONG v PEOPLE – “ROADSIDE QUESTIONING OF MOTORIST NOT CONSIDERED ARREST, EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE”
Issue: Whether or not the roadside questioning of a
motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop can be
considered a formal arrest
Facts: Traffic enforcer PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza flagged
down petitioner Rodel Luz for driving a motorcycle without
a helmet. Alteza invited Luz to come inside their sub-
station located near the area. While issuing a citation
ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, Alteza was
alerted by Luz’s uneasy movement and thus asked him to
put out the contents of the pocket of his jacket.
Consequently, it was revealed that Luz was in possession
of prohibited drugs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC)
convicted Luz of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The RTC added that Luz had been lawfully arrested for a
traffic violation and that he had been subjected to a valid
search. Upon review, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
the RTC’s decision.
Luz, filed a Petition for Review on certiorari before the
Supreme Court, thereafter. He alleged that there was no
lawful search and seizure because there was no lawful
arrest. He said that he was not issued a citation ticket or
charged with violation of the ordinance, nor did he
constented to the search conducted upon him.
YES. Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs (hashish).
A crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante
delicto. Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under par.1 of
the foregoing provisions, which allow a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest.
Under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for said
officers to believe that accused was then and there committing a crime. Aside from the
persistent reports received by the NARCOM that vehicles coming from Sagada were
transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs, their Commanding Officer also
received information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada on that particular day had
these in his possession. There was then no time to obtain a search warrant.
It must be observed that the NARCOM officers merely conducted a routine check of the
bus and the passengers therein, and no extensive search was initially made. It was only
when one of the officers noticed a bulge on the waist of accused that accused was
required to present his passport. His failure to present his identification papers only
managed to arouse suspicion. These circumstances taken as a whole led the NARCOM
officers to reasonably believe that the accused was trying to hide something illegal from
the authorities.
NO. There was no valid arrest. When he was flagged down for committing a traffic
violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely for this reason, arrested.
Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to
answer for the commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the
person to be arrested or by that person's voluntary submission to the custody of the one
making the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual touching of the body,
or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there
be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there be an
intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission
is necessary.
Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, the general procedure for
dealing with a traffic violation is not the arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the
driver's license of the latter.
Neither was there a consented warrantless arrest. Relevant to this determination are the
following characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which
consent is given:
(1) the age of the defendant;
(2) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location;
(3) whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on;
(4) the education and intelligence of the defendant;
(5) the presence of coercive police procedures;
(6) the defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence would be found;
(7) the nature of the police questioning;
(8) the environment in which the questioning took place; and
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting.
Neither does the search qualify under the "stop and frisk" rule. While the rule normally
applies when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead
him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a limited
protective search of outer clothing for weapons..