Being ordered out of car and handcuffed is an arrest for Fourth Amendment purposes

A person is under arrest, for Fourth Amendment purposes, when he is asked to step out of his car and placed in handcuffs, when no special circumstances, such as a risk of flight or danger to the police officers, exists justifying the use of handcuffs. Longshore v. State, 399 Md. 486, 924 A.2d 1129 (2007).

Defendant failed to plead sufficient discrepancies of material fact to get a suppression hearing. The discrepancies were minor and did not undermine the government’s version sufficient to change the outcome. United States v. Dewar, 489 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D. N.Y. 2007).*

Plaintiff stated a claim for his detention for an hour and a half based on a stop for a broken side mirror. At the least, discovery will have to occur. Aikman v. County of Westchester, 491 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D. N.Y. 2007).*

Florida reaffirms that no suspicion is required to run wants or warrants during a stop. Mays v. State, 959 So. 2d 216 (2007), following Golphin v. State, 945 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2006), petition for cert. filed, 75 U.S.L.W. 3512 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2007).*

Ohio holds that a stop for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk justified running wants or warrants and an FTA warrant appeared, and defendant was searched incident to that arrest. State v. Groce, 2007 Ohio 2874, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 2664 (10th Dist. June 12, 2007).*

Terry frisk did not produce a weapon, but the officer searched the pockets anyway. The search was invalid. Commonwealth v. Wilson, 2007 PA Super 175, 927 A.2d 279 (2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.