Defendant was followed by the police and when he was yelled at to stop, he reached to his waistband. He was finally handcuffed. Considering the nature of the place and the fact officers were unsure of who was around, they did not violate the Fourth Amendment by walking him to a safer location there for the actual patdown. United States v. Smith, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33000 (N.D. Ohio March 31, 2009):<\/p>\n
Moreover, the officers did not exceed their authority under Terry, transforming the temporary stop of Defendant Smith into a seizure incident to an arrest, by walking the Defendant downstairs and outside prior to patting him down. Courts have held that some movement of the suspect in the general vicinity of the Terry stop is permissible without converting what would otherwise be a temporary seizure into an arrest. See United States v. Montano-Gudino, 309 F.3d 501, 504 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that the movement of the defendant from outside a storage facility into one of the rooms of the building constituted a proper temporary seizure); United States v. $109,179 in U.S. Currency, 228 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding that moving a defendant a short distance to another room was part of a proper temporary seizure and holding that neither “handcuffing a suspect nor relocating a suspect automatically turns a detention into an arrest where these actions are reasonably taken for safety and security purposes”); United States v. Pino, 855 F.2d 357, 362 (6th Cir. 1988) (determining, in the context of a traffic stop — a “species of investigative detention” under Terry — that ordering an individual to move his car from the side of the highway to the interstate underpass was not “more intrusive than necessary to fulfill the purposes of the stop”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant fled back into his apartment seeking to avoid arrest and officers heard a commotion inside. This justified a protective sweep, and the officers did not manufacture exigency for a protective sweep. [If anything, the defendant did.] United States v. Zadiriyev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33074 (S.D. N.Y. April 17, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s patdown was justified because he refused to take his hand out of his pocket, and the odor of marijuana justified the search of the car. United States v. Bohanon, 629 F. Supp. 2d 803 (E.D. Tenn. 2009).*<\/p>\n
Items to be seized were itemized in an attachment to the SW and affidavit, and the affiant was present for the search. There is no indication that the search exceeded the scope of the attachment, and there would be no suppression just for that. United States v. Russell, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32947 (E.D. Ky. April 16, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading