CA1: Inevitable discovery applies to patdown; safety ultimately justified it

The district court credited the testimony of the officer that the patdown was justified by legitimate safety concerns after he got inconsistent dates of birth from the passenger. While the patdown otherwise would have exceeded the scope of a lawful patdown, inevitable discovery applies: “It was not clearly erroneous for the magistrate judge to find that the patdown was motivated in part by legitimate officer safety concerns.” United States v. Clark, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 515 (1st Cir. Jan. 9, 2018).

Motion to reconsider denied. “Aside from an unpersuasive attempt to distinguish some of the cases the Court considered in denying his motions to suppress, Bartunek presents the same arguments previously found inadequate to require suppression.” United States v. Bartunek, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2658 (D. Neb. Jan. 8, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Inevitable discovery, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.