TX6: Patdown policy of all persons stopped was unreasonable without RS

Officer lawfully approached defendant for panhandling, even though it was daytime. His practice of always patting down everybody he encounters made the patdown here invalid because there was no reasonable suspicion he was armed. Chism v. State, 418 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009).

“In this appeal, we hold that a positive alert on a vehicle by a trained narcotics detection dog, combined with the subsequent fruitless searches of the vehicle, the driver, and two passengers, does not provide sufficient particularized probable cause to allow a search of the only remaining passenger in the vehicle. We will therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the search at issue did not violate the Fourth Amendment.” Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 300, 683 S.E.2d 299 (2009), rev’g Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 53 Va. App. 1, 668 S.E.2d 435, 438 (2008).

Valid plain view occurred when officer responding to shots fired call saw shotgun shell in car, and he could enter the car under the automobile exception to retrieve it. Commonwealth v. Turner, 2009 PA Super 190, 982 A.2d 90 (2009).

Defendant was validly arrested because the officer knew there was a scofflaw warrant out for him. Commonwealth v. Galendez, 2009 PA Super 185, 2009 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3286 (September 16, 2009).*

Officer could approach a parked car with a flat tire to inquire of the welfare of the driver under the community caretaking function. She had slurred speech. State v. Huecker, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 759 (September 15, 2009).*