{"id":7608,"date":"2013-04-14T11:11:32","date_gmt":"2012-08-19T09:16:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-08-19T09:16:47","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7608","title":{"rendered":"MA: Without furtive movement, no RS for car frisk"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendants\u2019 car was stopped for a traffic offense, and the driver wouldn\u2019t look the officers in the eye and was nervous. His hands were on the steering wheel, and there were no furtive movements. A \u201cprotective sweep\u201d of the car producing a gun hidden in the back seat was unreasonable because of a lack of furtive movements. The others were not abnormal. \u201c[N]ervous or anxious behavior in combination with factors that add nothing to the equation will not support a reasonable suspicion that an officer&#8217;s safety may be compromised.\u2019 &#8230; See Commonwealth v. Cardoso, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 901, 901, 702 N.E.2d 398 (1998) (officer may not conduct patfrisk just because nervous defendant does not maintain eye contact).\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/weblinks.westlaw.com\/result\/default.wl?rs=MAOR1.0&amp;ss=CNT&amp;cnt=DOC&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;method=TNC&amp;service=Search&amp;fn=_top&amp;sskey=CLID_SSSA893725458198&amp;db=MA-ORSLIP&amp;fmqv=c&amp;action=Search&amp;origin=Search&amp;vr=1.0&amp;rlt=CLID_QRYRLT694025558198&amp;query=TO(ALLAPP+ALLAPPRS)&amp;mt=Westlaw&amp;rlti=1&amp;n=2&amp;rp=%2fsearch%2fdefault.wl&amp;sp=MassOF-1001&amp;rltdb=CLID_DB173565458198&amp;eq=search&amp;sv=Split\">Commonwealth v. Johnson<\/a>, 82 Mass. App. Ct. 336, 973 N.E.2d 146 (2012). [There was also an arrest warrant outstanding for a traffic offense, but that adds nothing, either.] <\/p>\n<p>There was probable cause for plaintiff\u2019s arrest, so a Fourth Amendment false arrest case fails. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/opinions.pdf\/12a0893n-06.pdf\">Ghaith v. Rauschenberger<\/a>, 493 Fed. Appx. 731 (6th Cir. 2012).*<\/p>\n<p>In a federal DP case, defense counsel\u2019s alleged failures on a motion to suppress which included challenging the search warrant under the state nighttime search law [not a Fourth Amendment issue] were not ineffective assistance and those issues were tried in the original proceeding and already appealed. Barrett v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115360 (E.D. Okla. August 16, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7608\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-7608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7608","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=7608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}