The men then agreed to a search of themselves and their bags for drugs. It seems likely that the men expected a pat-down, such as happened in United States v. Ashley, not a reach down their pants to their crotches. While the packages of crack were removed at a police substation, the police did not follow proper procedure in getting to that point. They should have asked the men to accompany them to a private place, and asked that they remove or open their pants. .

             Since the officers targeted these two men out of the many people likely to be present in an airport concourse, it seems probable that the officers had prior knowledge that these two people might be transporting drugs. Thus, the men could have asserted their Fourth Amendment rights. The officers could have retained them while they obtained a search warrant. Instead they proceeded abruptly and denied the men their Fourth Amendment rights.

             The important thing about this is that since the police very likely did not pick these men at random, they would have been arrested eventually anyway. The Fourth Amendment requires the government and its agencies to gather evidence against suspects in ways that do protect their constitutional rights. .

             United States v. Ashley.

             In this case, an officer again searched the private areas of a man. The man had stepped off a bus, gone into the bathroom and then came out. The officer asked if he could search the man, and he said yes. He patted the man down the outer surfaces of the pants, including the crotch, and felt something hard.

             This time the officer asked the defendant to open his pants. The man had on a second pair of pants, which the officer opened and removed something that was partly visible from above the man"s underwear. This object turned out to be a bag of crack cocaine. This defendant argued that the search exceeded the scope of his consent, but this time the court did not agree. .

             The court stated that the pat-down was within the scope of the permission given to the officer, and that based on this pat-down the officer had probable cause to continue.