S.D.N.Y.: Long protective weapons search not supplanted by Gant

Defendant’s stop for an illegal U-turn was valid. The officers’ prior information that defendant usually possessed a gun was justification for the protective weapons search. Long protective weapons searches are still valid under Gant. United States v. Torres, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61330 (S.D. N.Y. June 6, 2011).*

“We find that the story given by Defendant that he and Smith were looking for work in the oilfield, but they simply rode down the interstate without stopping anywhere, turning around in Lake Charles to return, is by itself suspicious. This, coupled with his passenger’s refusal to commit to where they had been, while basically saying, wherever the Defendant said we have been, compounded that suspicious behavior.” Calling out the drug dog was not unreasonable. State v. Kinchen, 71 So. 3d 344 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2011).*

Mere presence of a known prostitute in defendant’s car is not justification for questioning his relationship to her. Otherwise, no known prostitute could avoid being stopped. State v. Olson, 2011 NMCA 56, 150 N.M. 348, 258 P.3d 1140 (2011), Certiorari Granted, 265 P.3d 719 (N.M., 2011):

These very limited circumstances are insufficient to meet the standard of reasonable and articulable suspicion that Defendant had knowingly hired or offered to hire his passenger to engage in a sexual act. Were we to hold otherwise, police officers would have carte blanche based on suspicion of solicitation of a prostitute to stop any vehicle late at night whenever he saw a driver and a known prostitute in the vehicle, to require the driver to exit the vehicle, and to question the driver and the passenger regarding their relationship. That conduct, no different than the conduct in the present case, is tantamount to a seizure of a driver based on the mere presence of a passenger known to have committed a past criminal act.