D.S.D.: Danger not defused, so officer could conduct frisk; it’s “akin to the doctrine of a ‘protective sweep'”

I’ve analogized a frisk of a car authorized under Long as a ‘protective sweep,’ which is usually of a dwelling. Here, a court does too: Officers responded to a use of force report that had been not completely defused. When they approached the house, they had reason to check defendant for weapons because they would have their back on him and he seemed to pose a danger. “The court concludes that the officers were justified in contacting Mr. Johnston to conduct a Terry stop if, for no other reason, than to ensure that he did not have a weapon or pose a danger to the officers as they approached the Vickerman residence with their backs turned to Mr. Johnston. Thus, the Terry stop in this case was much more akin to the doctrine of a ‘protective sweep.’” United States v. Johnston, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98801 (D. S.D. May 29, 2014).

Plaintiff’s stop wasn’t over like he argues, so the officers could order him out of the car under Mimms. Wilson v. Los Lunas, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13906 (10th Cir. July 22, 2014) .*

Defendant was observed buying a gun at a gun show, and he was a suspected felon. A traffic stop for following too close was made, and the gun was seen and inquired about. Defendant’s stop was valid. United States v. Law, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13909 (10th Cir. July 22, 2014).*