Defendant\u2019s duffle bag made a \u201cthud\u201d when it was dropped, and it was searched for weapons. The court finds that the frisk of the duffle bag was unreasonable when looking to the government\u2019s authorities where there was more information or even a feel of the bag on whether there was gun inside. Here, no. United States v. Davis-Devine, 721 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D. Mich. 2010):<\/p>\n
Contrasting the officer’s actions in Williams<\/a> to Officer Reese’s actions in the present case shows what Officer Reese could have done differently. In the present case, Officer Reese testified that he picked up Defendant’s duffle bag from the floor, and immediately opened it. After securing the bag and ameliorating any purported safety concern, Officer Reese did not: (1) ask Defendant whether he could open the duffle bag; (2) ask Defendant what was in the duffle bag; or (3) feel the duffle bag to attempt to determine if it contained a weapon. Officer Reese should have taken some, or all, of these steps before opening Defendant’s duffle bag.<\/p>\n
Because the undersigned finds that the search of Defendant’s duffle bag was unlawful, any evidence or contraband discovered as a result of that intrusion was illegally obtained. See United States v. Williams<\/a>, 604 F.2d 1102, 1123 (8th Cir. 1979). Therefore, all the evidence recovered from Defendant’s blue duffle bag, from Defendant’s person after he was arrested and from Defendant’s hotel room should be suppressed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading