VI: Patdown producing mere bullets did not justify search for gun

Officer responded to shots fired call, and defendant was stopped in a car that likely had a shooting victim in it. The officer patted down the defendant and found bullets in his pocket by feel, but did not go into the pockets. He told the defendant to empty his pockets. When the bullets were produced, that led to a frisk for a weapon which was invalid because the patdown was unjustified. People v. Phillip, 53 V.I. 25 (2010)*:

Justification for a “stop” does not necessarily provide justification to “frisk” or “pat down” an individual. The governmental interest in “frisking” is not crime prevention. The greater and more immediate governmental interest is to authorize steps to assure that the person whom law enforcement has “stopped” is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against them. This is especially true given the increased percentage of law enforcement officers that are killed while discharging their duties. The Supreme Court best noted this unfortunate fact when it stated:

Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded. Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with guns and knives. In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. Terry, 88 S. Ct. at 1881.

[Note: Usually these cases come out just the opposite. I don’t want to sound like a prosecutor because I try to be objective about the Fourth Amendment, but bullets are reasonable suspicion that a gun may be in the car, aren’t they? This guy was in a car leaving the scene of a shooting call. Much of all reasonable suspicion is commonsense based on fact and not hunches. A shooting call, a fleeing car, and bullets are more than a hunch because people usually don’t just carry bullets. I think this will get reversed.]

Open container and furtive movement under the seat was reasonable suspicion. State v. Ball, 2010 Ohio 714, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 587 (11th Dist. February 25, 2010).*

Defendant’s admission to possessing a knife justifies a patdown. State v. McConaughy, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 182 (February 26, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.