{"id":4893,"date":"2011-01-11T17:22:14","date_gmt":"2010-11-15T00:15:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-14T16:59:55","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4893","title":{"rendered":"IN: If a vehicle frisk for a weapon is proper, it can go into the locked glove compartment"},"content":{"rendered":"

The officer stopping defendant was told that he was a suspect in several shootings, including a homicide. That, and defendant\u2019s slowness to respond to the officer\u2019s commands to get out of the car, were justification for a vehicle frisk for a weapon, including the locked glove compartment. Parish v. State<\/a>, 936 N.E.2d 346 (Ind. App. 2010):<\/p>\n

At the time of the traffic stop, Parish was a suspect in several shootings, including a homicide, and the police were on high alert that Parish was armed. Indeed, a \u201cgang unit\u201d officer had warned other officers that Parish had threatened to kill the next police officer he encountered and was even taking drugs in preparation for a shootout with the police. In addition, when Officer Foster first approached Parish\u2019s car and told him to step out of the vehicle, Parish did not immediately comply. He instead asked Officer Foster why she did not want to see his driver\u2019s license and registration. Only when Officer Foster explained to Parish that she knew who he was and again told him to step out of the car did he slowly take off his seat belt and exit the car.<\/p>\n

Under these facts and circumstances, a reasonably prudent person in Officer Foster’s position would be warranted in the belief that her safety was in danger. Officer Foster was therefore justified in searching the passenger compartment of Parish\u2019s car, limited to those areas in which a weapon might be placed or hidden. … <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A handgun in plain view on the floorboard of a car stopped by the police is justification for a search incident of the car under Gant<\/a>. Johnson v. United States<\/a>, 2010 D.C. App. LEXIS 666 (November 12, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4893"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4893\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}