DC: “Handcuffing is ordinarily improper in a Terry stop absent an objective safety concern.”

“Handcuffing is ordinarily improper in a Terry stop absent an objective safety concern. See United States v. Smith, 373 F. Supp. 3d 223, 241 (D.D.C. 2019); Haynes v. Minnehan, 14 F.4th 830, 835 n.4 (8th Cir. 2021) (‘[A]bsent an objective safety risk, handcuffing is not a routine part of a Terry stop.’). For the reasons stated above, a jury could find—notwithstanding the fact that officers told Mr. Katz that he was being handcuffed ‘for everybody’s protection’—that it was unreasonable under the circumstances to think handcuffing Mr. Katz immediately was necessary for safety purposes.” Katz v. District of Columbia, 2022 D.C. App. LEXIS 420 (Dec. 15, 2022).

Under the state constitution, defendant’s backpack could not be searched as a matter of course on arrest, following State v. Edwards, 304 Ore. App. 293, 294, 466 P3d 1034 (2020). State v. Wilcox, 323 Or. App. 271 (Dec. 14, 2022).*

Defendant’s cell phone was searched without a warrant merely to get the serial number. The warrant was based on text messages sent to it, so the first search was constitutionally meaningless since the warrant was based on probable cause. Lanham v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34758 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Inevitable discovery, Reasonable suspicion, Search incident, State constitution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.