“[A] threat to officer safety is a prerequisite for a search of a vehicle subject to an investigatory detention”

“[A] threat to officer safety is a prerequisite for a search of a vehicle subject to an investigatory detention” under Long. United States v. Ogle, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80102 (E.D. Tenn. October 9, 2008)*:

The evidence demonstrates that a full custodial arrest had not taken place prior to the arrest of the vehicle. [See, e.g., Doc. 17 at 14 (indicating that defendant was arrested subject to the investigation); id. at 22 (indicating that defendant was secured but not under full arrest)]. Accordingly Terry and Long are apposite. Under these standards, the court finds that the search of the vehicle was lawful. When the defendant initially exited his car and approached Officer Romer, Officer Romer observed blood on defendant’s pants and that defendant was wearing a knife sheath. Indeed, Officer Romer testified that defendant had blood “all over him.” [Doc. 17 at 32]. These facts clearly gave Officer Romer at a minimum reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous, such that a Terry patdown of defendant was warranted.

In Nellums v. Nevens, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (D. Nev. September 5, 2008)*, a habeas case on a failure to raise a Fourth Amendment claim, the court applies AEDPA and Strickland and never cites Stone to deny relief.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.