D.Kan.: Protective weapons search of clothing on front seat was reasonable of suspected bank robber

A protective weapons search of clothing on the front seat of a car stopped for two failures to signal of a person that the police had good reason to know was a suspect in bank robberies, but lacked probable cause, was still reasonable. United States v. Rogers, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29377 (D. Kan. March 22, 2011).*

“Moreover, the fact that Dawkins appeared to be attempting to flee gave the officers reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. The District Court found that the officers had a reasonable suspicion that Dawkins was armed and dangerous, particularly because he was in the company of a well known drug trafficker, who was known to carry weapons and to associate with individuals who carry weapons. In addition, B.L. had made threats against the police; specifically, against one of the arresting officers, Officer Sealock.” United States v. Dawkins, 419 Fed. Appx. 224 (3d Cir. 2011).* (unpublished)

Plaintiff’s civil case over the search of his property was filed just within the two year limitations. The search occurred more than a year earlier, but he did not learn about it until his arraignment in court on August 25, 2006. He sued just short of two years after that, and it was timely. The searches also involved alleged thefts of his property, and these claims were not barred by Heck v. Humphrey because they did not attack the conviction. Sanders v. Downs, 420 Fed. Appx. 175 (3d Cir. March 22, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.