{"id":4820,"date":"2010-11-02T22:22:24","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T07:45:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-10-27T07:45:14","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4820","title":{"rendered":"N.D.Ga.: Defendant who was also a suspect could be detained without PC during execution of SW"},"content":{"rendered":"

Detaining and then handcuffing a potential suspect during the execution of a search warrant was reasonable under the circumstances under Muehler<\/a>, and it did not require probable cause as to him. United States v. Maddox, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112847 (N.D. Ga. September 7, 2010):<\/p>\n

While Maddox correctly notes that law enforcement’s motives in sequestering him are relevant, so long as it was reasonable under the circumstances to detain Maddox during the execution of the search warrant by handcuffing and seating him in the rear of a police car, he was not subjected to an illegal detention or a de facto arrest. Here, unlike the individual challenging the constitutionality of her detention in Muehler<\/a>, Maddox was not a mere innocent occupant of the house being searched, detained as a result of unfortunate happenstance. He was instead the primary suspect in a robbery investigation, and his presence during the execution of the search warrant presented a legitimate safety concern, as well as a risk that he would flee or interfere with the search. See Muehler<\/a>, 544 U.S. at 98; Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, at 1288.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant\u2019s patdown was justified by a 911 call of assault on the street of a pregnant woman by a specifically described man. The officer got to the scene and saw no woman, but saw the man who was nervous and sweating despite the cold and he would not take his hands out of his pockets. The officer was justified in patting him down, and the vials of drugs in his pocket were easily determined by plain feel to be drugs under Dickerson<\/a>. United States v. Robinson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113204 (E.D. Pa. October 22, 2010).*<\/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-4820","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4820","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=4820"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4820\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4820"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4820"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4820"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}