Asking a stopped motorist about whether there were illegal drugs in the car was a question of officer safety because of fentanyl. \u201cThe questions here primarily involved the presence of weapons, although Officer Ragusa very briefly mentioned \u2018illegal narcotics.\u2019 The officer’s mere reference to \u2018illegal narcotics\u2019 is insufficient to change the outcome here. First, the question about illegal narcotics is also related to officer safety since exposure to certain narcotics may present a risk to officers, including potential adverse health effects.\u201d United States v. Green, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122740 (M.D. Fla. July 17, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s patdown in the jail was intrusive and even involved touching her breast, but it wasn\u2019t unreasonable. \u201c To the extent that Plaintiff intended to allege that this pat-down search violated the Fourth Amendment, as explained below, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that the pat-down was conducted while Plaintiff was clothed, and a pat-down search is necessarily intrusive, even sexually intrusive.\u201d Spoors v. Kent Cnty. Corr. Facility, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121842 (W.D. Mich. July 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer knew that an owner of the vehicle had warrants. When he saw the driver, the operator was close enough by description to the owner to justify the stop. When defendant got out of the car, marijuana was seen on his person. United States v. Heard, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121861 (E.D. N.C. July 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Asking a stopped motorist about whether there were illegal drugs in the car was a question of officer safety because of fentanyl. \u201cThe questions here primarily involved the presence of weapons, although Officer Ragusa very briefly mentioned \u2018illegal narcotics.\u2019 The … Continue reading