{"id":790,"date":"2007-06-19T10:25:56","date_gmt":"2007-02-18T09:20:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-02-18T09:20:45","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=790","title":{"rendered":"A frisk cannot be justified just for drugs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Terry<\/em> is limited to a frisk for weapons, and mere reasonable suspicion that the defendant might have drugs on him does not justify a frisk of the person. State v. Page, 2007 Ohio 671, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 603 (2d Dist. February 16, 2007):<\/p>\n

[*P78] While the officers appear to have been justified in detaining Perkins and Page to investigate their suspicious behavior, Terry,<\/em> 392 U.S. at 22, we perceive no basis from our review for a frisk for weapons. The officers pointed to nothing that would support a reasonable suspicion that Page was armed and dangerous. Indeed, their policy seemed to be to ask no questions upon approaching a suspect but, rather, to immediately handcuff the suspect and frisk him. Deputy Crosby’s generalization associating narcotics with guns and saying Page might have had a weapon did not demonstrate a justifiable belief that Page was armed and presently dangerous. Id.<\/em> at 24.<\/p>\n

[*P88] Because the frisk was unjustified, the seizure of the crack pipe was unlawful and Page’s arrest on account of possessing the pipe was likewise unlawful. The crack pipe and the additional contraband seized after the arrest should have been suppressed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was stopped for violation of the local noise ordinance. In plain view in the car, the officer saw apparent pirated recordings, and that justified a further search. Defendant’s conviction for possession of pirated materials affirmed. Hayward-El v. State, 284 Ga. App. 125, 643 S.E.2d 242 (2007).<\/p>\n

Nexus was shown to Hell Angels defendant’s computer for seizure in a search warrant because the basis shown was the use of the internet to communicate with each other. United States v. Fabel, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10289 (W.D. Wash. February 8, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Unprovoked flight from a parking lot known for drug activity on making eye contact with a police officer walking through the lot justified a Terry<\/em> stop. Suppression order reversed. State v. Wynn, 948 So. 2d 945 (Fla. App. 5th Dist. February 16, 2007).*<\/p>\n

Defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress a protective sweep of a dance hall in which he had no reasonable expectation of privacy could not be ineffective assistance. Hollis v. State, 219 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. App. \u2014 Austin 2007).*<\/p>\n

Officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant based on description of a light colored Cadillac pickup truck in the vicinity and defendant was driving a white one, the only one around. Mount v. State, 217 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. App. \u2014 Houston (14th Dist.) 2007) (substitute opinion for one issued August 8, 2006, but apparently not on Lexis):<\/p>\n

Therefore, we conclude that Officer Dagnault had reasonable suspicion to stop appellant’s vehicle to investigate whether it was stolen. Pursuant to this investigative detention, Officer Dagnault was entitled to question appellant regarding his identity and vehicle registration. See Hoag<\/em>, 728 S.W.2d at 380 (observing that an officer may briefly stop a suspicious individual in order to determine his identity or maintain the status quo while obtaining more information). In addition, because a valid investigatory stop had been made, the officer was justified in conducting a limited search of the person of the suspect, such as a frisk or pat down, for the protection of the officer while he conducted the investigation. See Wood v. State,<\/em> 515 S.W.2d 300, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). During this brief and minimally intrusive detention, additional facts developed to support a continued detention of appellant. Although further investigation revealed that the vehicle appellant was driving was registered to appellant’s wife, in the interim Officer Dagnault reasonably began to suspect that appellant had been driving while intoxicated. Thus, even though appellant was not arrested for unauthorized use of a vehicle, the investigation refocused on whether appellant had violated another law. Officer Pierce of the DWI task force concluded that appellant had been driving while under the influence of alcohol, which led to appellant’s arrest. We overrule appellant’s third and fourth issues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/790","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=790"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/790\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}