{"id":3700,"date":"2010-05-18T22:55:43","date_gmt":"2010-01-05T00:47:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-01-04T11:49:43","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3700","title":{"rendered":"LA5: Frisk was valid, but incriminating nature of object was not readily apparent"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was ordered out of the car with the others in it, and his movements made the officer concerned for his safety, so a frisk was justified. The incriminating nature of the object was unknown, however, so the search of a cigarette pack was invalid. State v. Brown<\/a>, 30 So. 3d 907 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009), released for publication January 26, 2010*:<\/p>\n

The case before us is distinguishable from Morton in that there is nothing in the record to show that the cocaine evidence seized from defendant’s pocket would inevitably have been discovered in a legal manner. According to the testimony, there was nothing the officer could have arrested defendant for at the time of the traffic stop aside from the discovery of the cocaine. The record contains no evidence that defendant had outstanding warrants. Nor could the drugs found inside the other passenger’s purse be attributed to defendant. Therefore, there would have been no search incident to arrest that would have led the officer to find defendant’s cocaine legally.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The trial court credited the officer that defendant was speeding, and that justified defendant\u2019s stop. When he was ordered from the car, rocks of crack were seen in plain view on the floorboard, and that justified a search of the car. State v. Wolff<\/a>, 30 So. 3d 897 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009).*<\/p>\n

Where defendant\u2019s conviction was affirmed but remanded, he could not raise a search and seizure issue that should have been raised in the first appeal. State v. Evans<\/a>, 30 So. 3d 958 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant filed a motion to suppress but never requested a hearing on it, and that was a waiver of the motion. State v. Oliver<\/a>, 30 So. 3d 946 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s moving his hand from his pocket at the officer\u2019s direction and then behind his back, ostensibly to \u201citch his butt\u201d raised safety concerns for the officer and justified a frisk. State v. Mason<\/a>, 2009 Iowa App. LEXIS 1671 (December 30, 2009).*<\/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-3700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3700","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=3700"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3700\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}