Defendant, a suspect in a robbery, was stopped for a seat belt violation. Once out of the vehicle, he ignored several requests to remove his hands from his pockets. When he finally did, he tossed a gun magazine over to a fence. The command to remove his hands from his pockets was lawful. United States v. Bell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70307 (D. V.I. June 30, 2011):<\/p>\n
Here, the variation on that theme is that Defendant was already outside of the car when he was instructed to remove his hands from his pocket and show them to police. Nonetheless, the logic of Moorefield [United States v. Moorefield<\/a>, 111 F.3d 10, 12 (3d Cir. 1997)] and Wilson [Maryland. v. Wilson<\/a>, 519 U.S. 408, 414 (1997) (\u201cWe therefore hold that an officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop.\u201d)] applies. The Court reads those cases as standing for the proposition that a traffic stop presents a uniquely dangerous situation to police which justifies minor incursions into the personal liberty of the occupants of stopped vehicles that might not otherwise be appropriate outside the traffic stop context. Just like the vehicles in Wilson and Moorefield could have contained weapons that their passenger’s unseen hands could access, Defendant’s pockets could also have contained accessible weapons. In other words, an officer executing a traffic stop is entitled to not only remove the vehicle\u2019s occupants, but also make sure that they do not have anything dangerous in their hands. The minimal intrusion on Defendant\u2019s liberty of having to remove his hands from his pocket after stepping out of the car is substantially outweighed by officer protection. Accordingly, the command to Defendant to remove his hands from his pocket was lawful.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading