An officer sought a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order (TERPO) under NYS law for defendant’s allegedly pointing a gun at his alleged victims from a car. This is a civil remedy, and, here, it did not provide any protection under the Fourth Amendment or state constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures. “This order is overbroad and lacks particularity. It does not identify the specific offense for which the police have established probable cause, it does not describe the place to be searched and it does not specify the items to be seized by their relation to a designated crime …. While the application provides slightly more information it also lacks sufficient particularity to satisfy the requirements of CPL 690 and the Federal and State Constitutions.” It also did not incorporate other documents or facts to supply what’s necessary. People v. A.O., 2023 NY Slip Op 23356, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 20099 (Erie Co. Sept. 23, 2023).
Officers working the Kansas City Greyhound station had already had a dog sniff luggage. When defendant approached a bag that the dog had alerted on, they asked if he was carrying cash or drugs, which he denied. They asked if they could search it, and he said “Yeah. Search it.” Then he asked if he could go to the bathroom to brush his teeth. That concerned the officers that he’d attempt to flee or destroy evidence, so he could be handcuffed. United States v. Bonilla, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30754 (8th Cir. Nov. 20, 2023).*