Protective sweep of car permitted even though defendant handcuffed

A protective search of the interior of defendant’s vehicle was justified under the facts even though he was handcuffed because of the possibility he would not be arrested, unhandcuffed, and get back into the car. United States v. Hill, 252 Fed. Appx. 532 (4th Cir. 2007) (unpublished):

Here, the police officers had a reasonable belief Hill was dangerous because they had reason to believe he had removed items from a house containing numerous weapons. The officers also knew that at least one of the items taken from the house appeared to be a gun. Moreover, when they approached the car, both officers involved in stopping Hill’s car observed a gun in the back seat. As was the case in Holmes, although Hill was out of the car and restrained when the officer searched the passenger compartment, the officer was entitled to conduct a protective search of that area because of the possibility that Hill would have access to any weapons located there. See Holmes, 376 F.3d at 280 (protective search of passenger compartment warranted when suspect was handcuffed in the back of police cruiser, because if not arrested, the suspect would be permitted to return to the vehicle).

Bare suspicion did not support defendant’s stop. “The officers in this case had not observed Smith engage in any criminal activity or violate any traffic offenses at the time of the encounter. While there had been prior tips that Smith was engaged in drug activity, those tips had not been corroborated by independent police investigation and there is no evidence in the record which otherwise reflects the reliability of those tips. Thus, those tips afforded no basis for Smith’s detention.” Conviction reversed. Smith v. State, 288 Ga. App. 87, 653 S.E.2d 510 (2007).*

Motion to suppress had not been filed, and the search was, for all apparent reasons (see fn. 2), conducted for failure to consent to a search; a drug dog was called after he refused to consent. The issue was waived for appellate review. Smith v. State, 243 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.