OR: Going into pocket after patdown unreasonable; no articulation of anything being a weapon

Defendant consented to a patdown, and the officer exceeded the scope of the patdown by going into the pocket. He felt something, but he didn’t articulate that it could be a weapon. The officer’s general observations about drug dealers didn’t support an officer safety risk. State v. Musalf, 280 Ore. App. 142, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 968 (Aug. 3, 2016).

There was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant’s vehicle for matching the description of the vehicle involved in a robbery in a 911 call seen two minutes later within blocks of the robbery. United States v. Daniel, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104159 (E.D.Mo. July 7, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96481 (E.D. Mo., July 25, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.