Officers with reasonable suspicion when confronting the defendant about a drug deal they stopped him for could ask him about whether he had a gun without Mirandizing him. Drug dealers often have guns, and guns are dangerous. United States v. Sinclair, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42542 (D. S.C. May 18, 2009):<\/p>\n
The proposition that drug trafficking is highly linked with dangerous weapons and violence involving such weapons is so obvious and well-established that this Court need give no further enumeration or proof of its veracity. In the present case, as explained above, law enforcement had reasonable suspicion that Defendant had a large quantity of marijuana in his automobile, and intended to sell a large quantity of marijuana to the informant. Given the well-established link between drug trafficking and gun violence, law enforcement therefore also had reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous. To hold otherwise would constantly put law enforcement officials in situations where they would be investigating and questioning suspected drug dealers who would be afraid of being apprehended and eventually punished, but who could very well have weapons on their persons. Such situations would undoubtedly lead to violence against law enforcement officers.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, asking Defendant if he had any weapons on his person, and the subsequent taking of the gun into custody, was lawful, and the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Suppress this evidence.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officer’s stop of what he thought was a suspicious person leaving a house was without any factual support and lacked reasonable suspicion. That stop led to a dog sniff. United States v. Molina, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (D. Idaho 2009).*<\/p>\n
A 911 call came from a library patron advised that the defendant was looking at child pornography in a library. Based on all the factors available to the officer, he had reason to talk to defendant who had a computer and looked furtively when the officer came in. When confronted, he said that the officers should “give him a break” because he was “sick.” This was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Talley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42682 (W.D. Va. May 19, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading