E.D.Pa.: “Furtive movements can support reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, justifying a frisk.”

“Furtive movements can support reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, justifying a frisk. Moorefield, 111 F.3d at 14. An officer ‘need not be absolutely certain’ that movements are an attempt to ‘hide narcotics or a firearm’ for ‘the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.’ Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 27).” … “Finally, escalating police encounters, including refusal to follow officer orders, physical resistance, and flight, buttress findings of dangerousness, and even probable cause. Many in-Circuit district courts have held that flight and resisting police commands augment an officer’s justifiable suspicion.” United States v. Seabreeze, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98746 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2024).*

“Because Smith failed to show that any evidence or statements would have been suppressed had counsel filed a motion to suppress, he has not established that his trial counsel was deficient, and this claim fails.” Smith v. State, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 212 (June 4, 2024).*

Plaintiff’s claim that defense counsel violated the Fourth Amendment in her representation of him didn’t state a claim. No facts at all. Lewis v. Walsh, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98664 (N.D.N.Y. June 4, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Stop and frisk. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.