A doctrine-driven, courtroom-ready guide to when police may lawfully search a companion of the target in a buy-bust—and when the search (and all seized items) must be suppressed.

This is general legal information for practitioners and students of criminal procedure and evidence.

1) First principles: the Constitution and the rule

Default rule: A search requires a judicial warrant.
Exception: In narrowly defined situations (below), a warrantless search may be reasonable.
Exclusionary rule: Evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures—and its fruits—is inadmissible.
Burden: The prosecution must show the search fits a jealously and carefully drawn exception.

2) Buy-bust basics (why companions get searched)

A buy-bust is a planned in flagrante operation: a poseur-buyer purchases drugs from a suspect with marked money. Officers often restrain everyone nearby for safety. The law, however, does not allow a blanket search of companions, bystanders, or passersby. There must be particularized facts linking the person to a valid exception.

3) The only recognized paths to a valid warrantless search of a companion

Below are the only doctrinal avenues. If none apply, the search is unreasonable.

A) Search incident to a lawful arrest

When allowed: After (not before) a lawful warrantless arrest of the companion based on any Rule 113, §5 ground:
- In flagrante delicto: officer personally sees acts showing the companion committing an offense (e.g., receiving the marked money, handing a sachet, acting as active co-seller/runner/lookout with overt acts).
- Hot pursuit: officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating the companion committed a crime that has just been committed.
- Escapee.
Scope: A full body search of the arrestee and grab-area; containers on his person may be opened.
Critical timing rule: Arrest first, search second. A search cannot be used to justify the arrest retroactively.

Mere presence or proximity to the buy-bust never creates probable cause to arrest or search a companion.

B) Stop-and-frisk (Terry-type) for officer safety

When allowed: Specific, articulable facts create a reasonable belief the companion is armed and dangerous or has just engaged in criminal activity. Examples:
- Watching the deal while palming a hard bulge; furtive movements suggesting a weapon; flight upon police approach combined with other suspicious cues; obvious hand-off to or from the seller.
Scope: A limited pat-down of outer clothing to find weapons. If the frisk yields an object whose criminal nature is immediately apparent (“plain feel”), seizure may follow; otherwise, no rummaging.
Not allowed: Using a frisk as a pretext to search for drugs absent weapon-related cues.

C) Plain-view seizure

When allowed: Officer is lawfully present, the item is immediately apparent contraband, and the officer has a right of access to seize it (e.g., sachet sticking out of the companion’s hand/pocket as he tries to discard it).
Limits: Plain view is not a license to probe pockets or bags; it justifies seizure of what is seen, not a general search of the person.

D) Voluntary, intelligent, unequivocal consent

When allowed: The companion freely consents to a search without coercion.
Burden: State must prove clear, positive, and voluntary consent—not mere acquiescence to armed authority, not a signature after restraint.
Best practice indicators: Consent given before custody, in writing, in a language understood, with option to refuse meaningfully offered.

E) Other narrow settings (rare in a street buy-bust)

Moving-vehicle exception (if the companion is an occupant of a vehicle lawfully stopped with probable cause).
Customs/immigration or checkpoint searches subject to special rules (still requiring reasonableness and, for intrusive acts, probable cause).

4) What doesn’t justify searching a companion

“He was with the seller” or “standing nearby.”
“Area is known for drugs.”
“He looked nervous” (without more).
“We searched everyone for safety” (without individualized facts).
Search first, then claim arrest based solely on the item discovered.

Any of the above typically results in suppression of seized drugs/money vis-à-vis the companion.

5) Evidence law overlay specific to dangerous drugs cases

Even if a search is valid, the State must still prove unbroken chain of custody under the Dangerous Drugs law: seizure, marking immediately upon confiscation, inventory and photographs in the presence of the required witnesses, secure storage, transport, and forensic examination—with justified links for any deviations. A bad search or a broken chain is independently fatal.

6) Applying the rules: fast hypotheticals

Companion as lookout. He whispers with the seller, peeks for police, and grabs the marked money. Officers arrest him; a search incident to arrest yields sachets. Admissible (arrest based on overt acts; search follows).
Companion beside the seller, hands in pockets. No overt act; police frisk and find sachet deep inside a pocket. Suppress (no articulable basis for a frisk; search discovered evidence that then “justified” the arrest).
Companion clutches a visible sachet and tries to toss it when officers pounce. Plain view justifies seizure; if officers then cuff him, a search incident flows from the fresh arrest.
Companion consents at gunpoint. He says “bahala na” while surrounded by armed officers. Invalid consent; suppression likely.
Companion inside a car used for the deal. Officers have probable cause the car carries drugs; a moving-vehicle search of passenger compartments is reasonable. A pat-down of occupants requires separate articulable facts for frisk; otherwise limit to the vehicle.

7) Litigation toolkits

A) For the Prosecution

Articulate individualized facts: detail the companion’s overt acts (lookout signals, hand-offs, possession of marked money).
Timing narrative: Show arrest preceded search for that person.
If frisk: Describe weapon-related cues and keep the frisk limited.
If consent: Prove voluntariness (language, demeanor, absence of coercion, written consent).
Chain of custody: Mark at the scene, secure witnesses, explain any deviations credibly.

B) For the Defense

Move to suppress: insist on a hearing focused on (1) lack of individualized probable cause or articulable suspicion, (2) search-before-arrest sequencing, (3) invalid consent, (4) scope violations (frisk morphing into rummage).
Exploit vagueness: “nervous,” “acting suspicious” without specifics is not enough.
Lock chain-of-custody gaps: no immediate marking, missing inventory witnesses, unexplained transfers.
Fruit of the poisonous tree: seek exclusion of all derivative evidence (lab results, marked money tied to the illegal search).
Alternative narrative: mere presence; no link to the sale; no constructive possession of drugs.

8) Decision tree (bench/field quick check)

Was the companion lawfully arrested?
- Yes → Search incident valid (scope: person + grab area).
- No → Go to 2.
Specific facts justify a frisk for weapons?
- Yes → Frisk only; if plain feel of contraband, seize.
- No → Go to 3.
Contraband in plain view with right of access?
- Yes → Seize that item (no general search).
- No → Go to 4.
Valid consent?
- Yes → Search within the consented scope.
- No → Do not search; any search is unreasonable.

9) Scope & limits (to avoid overreach)

Frisk ≠ full search. It’s a pat-down for weapons. Opening wallets, coin purses, or tightly sealed pouches exceeds a frisk unless probable cause ripens (e.g., plain feel immediately indicates contraband).
Protective sweep around an arrest scene allows a quick check for people who might attack, not a search of persons who are not arrested.
Bags/backpacks of non-arrestee companions require consent or probable cause + exigency; otherwise get a warrant.

10) Practical compliance for enforcers (to keep evidence in)

Pre-op documentation: PO report, coordination, marked money inventory.
Body-worn cameras where available; note time stamps.
Verbatim cues: Record what the companion did that triggered the frisk or arrest.
Announce arrest and state the ground before searching.
Immediate marking of any seized item and inventory with required witnesses.

11) Model pleadings (short skeletons)

A) Motion to Suppress (Companion)

Accused [Name], arrested solely for being beside the target during a buy-bust, respectfully
moves to suppress evidence seized from his person. The search preceded any lawful arrest,
and the officers articulated no specific facts warranting a frisk. Mere presence and alleged
“nervousness” do not create probable cause. The seizure violated Art. III, Sec. 2; all items
and their fruits are inadmissible under Sec. 3(2).

B) Opposition (State)

The poseur-buyer observed [Companion] act as lookout and receive the marked money after
the exchange. Officers effected a lawful in flagrante arrest based on personal knowledge.
The subsequent search incident to that arrest yielded the seized items, which were marked
on-scene and preserved through an unbroken chain of custody.

12) Quick FAQs

Q1: Can police “search everyone” at the bust site? No. They need individualized cause (arrest, frisk facts, plain view, or consent) for each person.

Q2: If the companion runs, is that enough? Flight alone is not enough; combined with other suspicious acts it may justify a stop (not automatically a full search).

Q3: If the companion holds the marked money but no drugs, can he be searched? Yes—probable cause for arrest exists (participation as co-seller or conspirator). A search incident is valid.

Q4: If the search is invalid but the lab result is positive, can the case stand? No. Illegally seized drugs are inadmissible; the case collapses without the corpus delicti.

Q5: Can consent cure an earlier illegal search? No. Consent must precede and be free; post-hoc signatures after custodial restraint are suspect.

13) Bottom line

In a buy-bust, companions are not fair game for blanket searches.
The State must show a valid exception tied to that person: lawful arrest → full search; specific frisk facts → limited pat-down; plain view → seize what is seen; or real consent.
Anything else is an unreasonable search; the seized drugs/money are out, and the case against the companion likely fails—even if the main target’s arrest stands.

If you want, share your case facts (who did what, when the arrest and search occurred, and what was allegedly found). I can draft a targeted suppression motion or a prosecution theory outline mapped to these doctrines.