CA9: Generalized suspicion of drugs doesn’t justify frisk; more is required

A dog alert on a car alone was no justification for a frisk because it could have been drugs, money, or people the dog was alerting on. “The Supreme Court has not allowed a general suspicion of drug activity to provide blanket authorization for frisking anyone in the vicinity. See Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 90-91 (1979).” United States v. I.E.V., 705 F.3d 430 (9th Cir. 2012):

Moreover, in this case, both officers testified that the Defendant acted in a non-threatening and compliant manner. This is similar to the compliant suspect who was unconstitutionally frisked in Ybarra, and unlike the suspect in Jacobs who was charging police officers in his vehicle. Moreover, the Defendant was a young teenager surrounded by three police officers, rather than a man confronting a solitary officer in a confined space, as in U.S. Currency. Therefore, the officers’ general suspicion of drugs did not justify the frisk of Defendant.

Officer failed to show reasonable suspicion for his continued questioning of the plaintiff, so there is no qualified immunity. Sutton v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 700 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2012).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.