D.Neb.: Vehicle frisk lacked RS under Long

A vehicle frisk would have been valid here under Gant and Long. Here, however, the officer lacked any reasonable suspicion. United States v. Stewart, 675 F. Supp. 2d 973 (D. Neb. 2009)*:

Moreover, even if the officers’ testimony that they subjectively feared danger is credited, the testimony does not amount to a showing that a reasonably prudent officer would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger under these circumstances. Deputy Woodward’s testimony that he observed allegedly furtive gestures is explained by the fact that the defendant was searching for his identification. Moreover, a reasonable apprehension of danger would have justified a pat-down or a search of the defendant’s immediate area at that time, rather than later. The continued detention of the defendant for the supposed purpose of completing a field interview card is at odds with the professed reason for the search of the car. The video shows that Deputy Woodward was searching the car contemporaneously with the “field questioning” of the defendant. The officers had received no information from the computer records check from which they could conclude that the defendant was potentially armed and dangerous. Though they knew he had been convicted of a felony, they testified that they did not know the details of his conviction. Status as a felon and criminal history that suggests some degree of violent behavior does not create suspicion of danger commensurate with a full-scale search of a vehicle.

Notably, this was not a traffic stop. There are no allegations of any motor vehicle violations. The defendant offered a reasonable explanation for his presence in the neighborhood at the late hour. His references to a woman’s “boyfriend” and “husband” are not necessarily inconsistent and, even if they are, would not lead to any inference of dangerousness. The officers expressly disavowed any intent to arrest or charge the individual with possession of drug paraphernalia.

Federal warrants issued by Maine Superior Court judges are valid under Rule 41. United States v. Pressey, 674 F. Supp. 2d 301 (D. Me. 2009).*

In the case of the bank robber whose surveillance photograph was seen by his cop son who went to his house looking for him and found evidence of the bank robbery in plain view (United States v. Ginglen, 467 F.3d 1071 (7th Cir. 2006) posted here), his knowing and intelligent guilty plea was a waiver of all issues. Ginglen v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117752 (C.D. Ill. December 17, 2009).*

Defendant led police on a high speed chase as they closed in to arrest him for a drug offense. (“Cubit alleges no facts demonstrating that a reasonable innocent person would have led law enforcement on a high speed chase when officers initially attempted to stop him.”) Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging his arrest. Cubit v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117715 (W.D. Mo. December 16, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.