A motor home is not entitled to greater Fourth Amendment protections. Instead, a motor home poses greater risks and is subject to a protective sweep in proper cases. Here, defendant\u2019s consent justified a protective sweep and then his admission he had marijuana gave probable cause to search the vehicle. United States v. Coleman, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62950 (D. Neb. May 20, 2011):<\/p>\n
Likewise in [United States v. Robinson<\/a>, 455 F.3d 832, 834 (8th Cir. 2006)], a de minimis intrusion beyond the scope of the traffic stop was allowed. In Robinson, the defendant was pulled over for failing to stop at a stop sign. After issuing the warning for the traffic violation, the police officer asked Robinson about an object the officer believed he saw Robinson take from his pocket and hide between the seats. Robinson argued that once the warning was issued the stop should have concluded and any further detention was an impermissible seizure. The court disagreed, noting that even if the law enforcement officer did not have reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop, the brief questioning did not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation. 455 F.3d at 834. \u201cEven if a suspicionless seizure occurred during the period from the conclusion of the traffic stop until the officers unquestionably had probable cause, it was a de minimis intrusion that did not constitute an unreasonable seizure with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d Id.<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
Moreover, even assuming as defendant argues, that the scope of a roadside search should be narrowed when the vehicle is a mobile home, unlike an automobile a mobile home can hide others who may pose a risk of harm to the officer. Officers may take \u201cadditional steps as are \u2018reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and maintain the status quo during the course of a stop.\u2019\u201d United States v. Thomas<\/a>, 249 F.3d 725, 729 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal citations removed). Since Trooper Bauer did not know if anyone else was in the defendant\u2019s vehicle, he was entitled to perform a protective sweep of the motor home and search areas where another individual may be hiding \u2013 including under the bed. See Thomas, 249 F.3d at 729 (upholding a protective sweep of a van when the officer could not see into a van from the outside).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading