VA: Def’s consent to a patdown for weapons didn’t include full search of the person

Defendant only consented to a patdown, not a full search of his person. “As Officer Murphy reached into Carter’s jacket pocket, he asked, ‘Nothing on you is gonna poke, prick, or stab me?’ Carter replied, ‘No, sir.’ This exchange did not expand the scope of Carter’s consent beyond a search for weapons. Rather, Officer Murphy merely sought Carter’s assurance that he would not be injured by any sharp objects as he searched Carter for weapons.” Carter v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS 850 (Dec. 28, 2023).

“In his brief, Mr. Hayes challenges these ‘findings’ and argues they are not supported by competent, credible evidence. However, in reviewing the dash camera video, body camera video, and Officer Miracle’s testimony at the suppression hearing, this Court disagrees. Mr. Hayes did, in fact, cause his vehicle to travel off the road, go through several lawns, hit a mailbox and flower bed, crash into a guardrail and hit a tractor. When asked how the accident happened, Mr. Hayes could not give a logical answer and responded, ‘just don’t know.’” And, he exhibited all the signs of being DUI when stopped. State v. Hayes, 2023-Ohio-4769 (9th Dist. Dec. 27, 2023).*

By law, the State Controller has possession of abandoned property. This was not an unreasonable seizure. Rider v. Cal. State Controller, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229461 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.