CA1: Protective sweep for weapons requires only objective reasonableness, and actual fear not required

A First Circuit panel overrules its caselaw as inconsistent with SCOTUS cases that a frisk for weapons must be both objective and with subjective fear: “United States v. Lott that officers cannot do a ‘frisk for weapons … where, although the circumstances might pass an objective test,’ the police ‘were not actually concerned for their safety.’ See 870 F.2d 778, 783-84 (1st Cir. 1989).” An objective standard is all that is required. United States v. Guerrero, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35883 (1st Cir. Dec. 6, 2021) (the court notes that panel’s almost never overrule panels, but this one they say is obvious).

The trial court found the state failed to prove defendant’s consent to his blood draw was voluntary, and the evidence supports that conclusion. Affirmed. State v. Baumgartner, 2021 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 551 (Dec. 6, 2021).*

“Morris has not made a prima facie showing under § 2244(b). Morris concedes that his proffered Fourth Amendment claim (Claim 1) is not based on new law or newly discovered facts.” In re Morris, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35844 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Issue preclusion, Protective sweep, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.