Friday’s state cases; PA sanctions RS based on really bad nature of area

Officers’ experience with the area and the people who populated it gave RS for a stop. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2006 PA Super 218, 907 A.2d 540 (August 16, 2006):

In the case at hand, the record clearly shows that Officers Watson and Rocks found one of the drug transaction suspects with a group of men in an area known for drug problems, gun problems, and, most significantly, violent reactions to the police. Officer White testified from personal experience that the location was a “cop fighting corner.” N.T. 9/22/04 at 9. As such, under the totality of the circumstances, viewed through the eyes of a trained officer, we find that there was reasonable suspicion that the drug suspect’s companions were armed and dangerous. As was the case in N.L., “[g]iven these circumstances, we do not find that the minimal intrusion of a safety-oriented frisk was unwarranted. Police officers must be able to take certain steps, as was done here, to ensure their safety.” N.L., 739 A.2d at 569. Thus we find that the police properly ordered Jackson to place his hands on the fence and submit to a frisk, and Jackson’s appellate claim in this regard provides no grounds for reversal of Judge Fleisher’s denial of his suppression motion.

Officers admitted by consent into murder suspect’s house could answer the telephone when a call came in. They had PC and exigent circumstances for doing so. Answering the telephone was necessary to locate the defendant who was on the run. People v. Ledesma, 39 Cal. 4th 641, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 326 (August 17, 2006).

Pointing a stun gun at a suspect and directing him to empty his pockets is a seizure. State v. Williams, 281 Ga. App. 187, 635 S.E.2d 807 (August 17, 2006).

The record supports the finding that the defendant was not in custody nor restrained when he consented, and consent was shown by clear and convincing evidence. Lopez v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 7270 (Tex. App. – El Paso August 17, 2006).