{"id":2151,"date":"2008-06-20T15:21:25","date_gmt":"2008-06-15T09:26:32","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-06-15T09:26:32","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2151","title":{"rendered":"Park ranger’s stop with probable cause off park was not a Fourth Amendment violation under Moore<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Park Ranger’s stop of defendant off park property with probable cause was not a Fourth Amendment violation under Moore v. Virginia<\/em><\/a>. United States v. Strasnick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45353 (D. Mass. June 10, 2008)*:<\/p>\n

While it is quite perspicuous that Ranger LaMere lacked the statutory authority necessary to lawfully arrest Strasnick off of federal property, it is not necessary for this Court to decide whether Strasnick’s initial Terry<\/em> detention and subsequent transfer amounted to a de facto arrest. In accordance with Jones<\/em>, Ranger LaMere’s lack of statutory authority to arrest Strasnick is not a per se violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. See Jones<\/em>, 428 F. Supp. 2d at 502. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. In determining what is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that “when officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.” Virginia v. Moore<\/em><\/a>, 128 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 170 L. Ed. 2d 559 (2008). So long as the arrest is based on probable cause, it is constitutionally permissible and the Fourth Amendment does not require exclusion of the evidence recovered from the arrest or the search incident to that arrest. See id.<\/em> at 1607-1608.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant consented to talk to officers and he consented to a patdown for officer safety under Drayton<\/em><\/a>. United States v. Hill, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45399 (W.D. Pa. June 6, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}