WA: Being under influence is not reason for a frisk

Being under the influence was not a reason for a frisk because there was no indication that the defendant was armed. State v. Setterstrom, 163 Wn.2d
621, 183 P.3d 1075 (2008):

¶17 We do not find such a basis here. The police received an anonymous call claiming Setterstrom was under the influence, heard a lie about his name, and observed his nervous, fidgety behavior. The record shows no threatening gestures or words. Setterstrom did not even stand. At most, the record shows that Setterstrom was under the influence; this is not a crime in itself.

Evidence supports conclusion that the officers had reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing for a frisk during traffic stop. United States v. Bowen, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10981 (9th Cir. May 12, 2008) (unpublished).*

D.C. District approves of a class action of arrested protestors who were strip searched when booked. Bame v. Dillard, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40805 (D. D.C. May 22, 2008):

Plaintiffs have successfully established that there is sufficient commonality and typicality for the class to be certified. As this Court said in a recent order certifying a class action, “‘a strip-search, by its very nature, constitutes an extreme intrusion upon personal privacy, as well as an offense to the dignity of the individual.'” Johnson v. District of Columbia, 248 F.R.D. 46, 53 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Wood v. Clemons, 89 F.3d 922, 928 (1st Cir. 1996)). This intrusion is alleged to have been commonly experienced by the putative members of the class. Further, Plaintiff has laid out issues of law and fact that are common to all members of the proposed class, including, primarily, whether the searches violated the Fourth Amendment. See Pls.’ Mem. at 16.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.