TN: Finding warrant for passenger as a violent wanted criminal justified extending stop

There was PC for the stop of defendant’s vehicle, and the continued detention because the passenger was a wanted violent criminal. That is a compelling public interest. State v. Grogger, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 937 (November 17, 2009) (passenger’s case: State v. Johnson, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 870 (Tenn. Crim. App. October 15, 2009) (PC for the stop)):

It is hard to fathom a more compelling public interest than securing the arrest of people wanted for violent crimes. Taylor, 41 P.3d at 688. Probable cause to arrest Johnson “constituted an objectively measurable reason for stopping Defendant’s vehicle, and thus adequately circumscribed the ‘standardless and unconstrained discretion … of the official in the field’ with which Prouse was so concerned.” Id. (citing Prouse, 440 U.S. at 661). In accordance with these principles, we conclude that, because the stop of the vehicle was supported by probable to cause to arrest Johnson, the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, and he was not improperly seized by the car stop. See also id. (citations omitted).

Defendant was a casual visitor at the house of another, and the house was the subject of a protective sweep for weapons from a “multi-defendant violent criminal act.” The protective search was valid. State v. Akins, 2009 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 944 (November 18, 2009)

The protective search was valid here because the defendant had been part of a multi-defendant, violent criminal act that resulted in the shooting death of the victim. For the protection of the arresting officers, it is reasonable that they would search the defendant’s room for other conspirators. The detective who conducted the sweep specifically testified that he was concerned that someone might be hiding in the closet. During the protective sweep, the officers discovered the gun in plain view. Based on the record, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings that a valid search occurred or that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the gun as evidence.

Request for a consent to search a car was general, as was defendant’s grant of consent: “go ahead.” Therefore, the search of the glove compartment was reasonable. State v. Baker, 232 Ore. App. 112, 221 P.3d 749 (2009).*

Defendant was stopped on a bicycle for not having a light, and the officer violated the state constitution by asking whether he was on probation. State v. Montoya, 232 Ore. App. 278, 221 P.3d 833 (2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.