CA4: Defendant’s reluctance to talk to officer while his friends did was not reasonable suspicion

Defendant’s pat down was unjustified by reasonable suspicion. An officer was cruising an area of a “vague report” of shots fired a couple of blocks away and asked to talk to some young men who came up to him to talk. Two were more gregarious than defendant, who did not lean in to talk to the officer. Defendant declined to submit to a patdown after the other two did. “On the facts of this case, there is precious little to sustain the district court’s holding that Officer Gaines had reasonable, particularized suspicion of Massenburg such that a nonconsensual frisk was lawful under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2011).* Update: Noted in Federal Criminal Appeals Blog: The Fourth Circuit and the Fourth Amendment: If You Search Like a Redcoat You Can’t Use What You Find In Court.

Officers asked for consent of defendant’s hotel room which defendant initially refused. They said that they’d attempt to get a search warrant. “At that point, Bond exclaimed, ‘F-ck it!,’ grabbed the key card, and unlocked the door.” That was consent. United States v. Bond, 433 Fed. Appx. 441 (6th Cir. 2011)*.

Omissions from the affidavit were so minor that it did not undermine probable cause; nor did it suggest that the officer was trying to mislead the magistrate. Franks hearing denied. United States v. Robertson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90598 (E.D. Va. August 15, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.