News-Record.com

A Court of Appeals ruling issued Tuesday points to good work by Greensboro police in properly carrying out a strip search that turned up cocaine in a woman's underwear.

Crystal Elaine Neal contended that evidence in the drug case should have been excluded because she didn't give permission for Officer Jennifer Mauney to conduct such a revealing search. Trial court Judge Catherine Eagles denied the motion, and the COA, in a unanimous decision written by Jim Wynn and joined by Wanda Bryant and Barbara Jackson, affirmed.

The action took place April 25, 2006, as "Officer Roman Watkins was conducting surveillance of a gas station located in a well-known drug area on East Market Street in Greensboro," Wynn wrote.

You can read all about it at the link above. Cutting to the key part: Officers' observations and the attitude of a drug dog created suspicion that Neal was hiding something. A female officer, Mauney, was summoned. Neal was asked whether she would consent to a thorough search. She said yes and was taken into a bathroom at a nearby business.

"Officer Mauney then had Defendant turn sideways, according to police procedure, and asked her to lift her shirt, then unzip her pants and lower them. She then asked Defendant to lower her underwear, at which point a package of what was later determined to be cocaine fell out."

Uh-oh. Neal ended up pleading guilty to possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, trafficking in cocaine by possession and trafficking in cocaine by transportation. She was given a sentence of 35 to 42 months but appealed the conviction on the grounds that the search should have been disallowed.

The court firmly disagreed. Wynn noted legal precedents that require a balancing of personal rights against the need for a particular search but cited a U.S. Supreme Court standard of "objective reasonableness": "What would the typical reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?"

In this case, Neal should have known what was coming when she was asked to consent to a thorough search and when she was taken to a private location by a female officer.

Wynn concluded by making a point of mentioning the officer's conduct:

"Officer Mauney did not touch Defendant directly but rather only observed as she removed her own clothing for a short period of time. Accordingly, we find that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search conducted by Officer Mauney."

This is a clearly written, common-sense opinion in which the courts fully support excellent police work for the benefit of the community.