“The search in the present case occurred in 2011. Hare’s focus on Rodriguez, which was issued in 2015, is misplaced. The Fifth Circuit has ‘repeatedly held that “there is no general duty on the part of defense counsel to anticipate changes in the law.”’ United States v. Fields, 565 F.3d 290, 294 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). The Court further found that attorneys are not required to be clairvoyant ….” Hare v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37594 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2019).
Defendant’s actions in getting out of the car immediately, excessive nervousness, and blading his body supported the officer’s claim of reasonable suspicion to justify a frisk for weapons. The presence of loose money and a screwdriver in the car led the officer to look at a vent that had pry marks. He suspected a weapon and he was right. Based on the frisk and the observations, there was probable cause for the vehicle search. Commonwealth v. Bozeman, 2019 PA Super 70, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 221 (Mar. 8, 2019).*