MA: “Fidgeting” can be furtive movement for RS

The trial court’s finding of furtive movement supporting reasonable suspicion was not clearly erroneous. Commonwealth v. Rivera, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 304, 921 N.E.2d 1008 (2010)*:

The defendant quarrels only with the judge’s determination that his gestures were furtive, asserting that these movements were mere “fidgeting.” “The phrase ‘furtive gesture’ appears in many decisions where the issue is whether a patfrisk or a search of a vehicle is justified. The gestures are interpreted by the police (and by the courts) as demonstrating the hiding of contraband or as threatening the officers’ safety.”

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that could never be granted because a private search occurred. Moss v. State, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 166 (February 24, 2010).*

DUI roadblock was constitutionally set up and was properly conducted. State v. Aloyo, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 160 (February 19, 2010).*

Overly broad certified question for suppression appeal precluded appellate review in Tennessee. State v. Hawks, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 157 (February 19, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.