MT: Use of a flashlight to look in a parked car was not 4A violation

Police use of a flashlight to look in a car in a parking lot the officer was interested in because the operator was on probation was reasonable. State v. Roberts, 2025 MT 110, 2025 Mont. LEXIS 567 (May 27, 2025). [I thought this was settled 70 years ago.]

During a traffic stop, the officer could run defendant’s name for warrants, and, finding a warrant here, he could arrest defendant and search him. United States v. Patterson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99920 (D.S.C. May 27, 2025).*

“In sum, although eight armed police officers wearing tactical vests were twenty feet away from Ganaway, they never threatened Ganaway nor displayed their weapons; they did not demand information or compliance; and they did not touch or surround him or otherwise exert their control. They simply asked him one neutral question in a friendly tone, during a brief interaction. Ganaway’s personal reaction to the police’s presence is immaterial because the test of ‘whether ‘a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter” … presupposes an innocent person.’ Marujo, 192 P.3d at 1006 (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436). Thus, we hold, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the initial encounter between the police and Ganaway was not a seizure, meaning it did not trigger Fourth Amendment protections.” People v. Ganaway, 2025 CO 25, 2025 Colo. LEXIS 359 (May 27, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Search incident. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.