{"id":50679,"date":"2021-12-08T08:53:19","date_gmt":"2021-12-08T13:53:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=50679"},"modified":"2021-12-09T09:42:33","modified_gmt":"2021-12-09T14:42:33","slug":"ca1-protective-sweep-for-weapons-requires-only-objective-reasonableness-and-actual-fear-not-required","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=50679","title":{"rendered":"CA1: Protective sweep for weapons requires only objective reasonableness, and actual fear not required"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>A First Circuit <em>panel<\/em> overrules its caselaw as inconsistent with SCOTUS cases that a frisk for weapons must be both objective and with subjective fear: \u201cUnited States v. Lott that officers cannot do a \u2018frisk for weapons \u2026 where, although the circumstances might pass an objective test,\u2019 the police \u2018were not actually concerned for their safety.\u2019 See 870 F.2d 778, 783-84 (1st Cir. 1989).\u201d An objective standard is all that is required. <a href=\"http:\/\/media.ca1.uscourts.gov\/pdf.opinions\/21-1244P-01A.pdf\">United States v. Guerrero<\/a>, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35883 (1st Cir. Dec. 6, 2021) (the court notes that panel&#8217;s almost never overrule panels, but this one they say is obvious).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The trial court found the state failed to prove defendant\u2019s consent to his blood draw was voluntary, and the evidence supports that conclusion. Affirmed. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tncourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/christapher_baumgartner_cca_opinion.pdf\">State v. Baumgartner<\/a>, 2021 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 551 (Dec. 6, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cMorris has not made a prima facie showing under \u00a7 2244(b). Morris concedes that his proffered Fourth Amendment claim (Claim 1) is not based on new law or newly discovered facts.\u201d In re Morris, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35844 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A First Circuit panel overrules its caselaw as inconsistent with SCOTUS cases that a frisk for weapons must be both objective and with subjective fear: \u201cUnited States v. Lott that officers cannot do a \u2018frisk for weapons \u2026 where, although &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=50679\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,126,22,63],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consent","category-issue-preclusion","category-protective-sweep","category-reasonableness"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50679","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\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=50679"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50679\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50699,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50679\/revisions\/50699"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=50679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=50679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=50679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}