\u201cBut even if the police lacked probable cause to search the van immediately upon discovering it, the undersigned concludes that Officer Yadlosky was justified in opening the van door to check on the welfare of the occupant inside. Once the van door was open, there can be no doubt that probable cause existed to search the van due to the overwhelming odor of marijuana.\u201d United States v. Parks, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158972 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2016).*<\/p>\n
\u201c[B]ased on Detective Murphy’s observation of the imprint of a gun in Defendant’s pocket and Defendant’s admission that he had a gun, the detectives had a reasonable belief that Defendant was armed and presently dangerous, providing them with authority to frisk Defendant for weapons. When Defendant twice disobeyed the detectives’ orders to refrain from reaching into his pocket, Detective Trinidad-Ortiz grabbed Defendant, who resisted and struggled with the detective. Once officers handcuffed Defendant, they retrieved the firearm that was sticking out of his pocket. The detectives’ conduct amounted to an intrusion no greater than a Terry frisk permitted by the Fourth Amendment.\u201d United States v. Johnson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158685 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cBut even if the police lacked probable cause to search the van immediately upon discovering it, the undersigned concludes that Officer Yadlosky was justified in opening the van door to check on the welfare of the occupant inside. Once the … Continue reading