{"id":6351,"date":"2012-05-28T20:42:19","date_gmt":"2011-12-04T00:02:58","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-12-03T08:43:37","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6351","title":{"rendered":"CA4: Stop for car theft justifies a patdown"},"content":{"rendered":"

Stop for car theft justifies a patdown. United States v. Braxton<\/a>, 456 Fed. Appx. 242 (4th Cir. 2011), certiorari denied, 132 S. Ct. 1815, 182 L. Ed. 2d 633, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 2468 (U.S., Mar. 26, 2012) (unpublished):<\/p>\n

After all, as the District of Columbia Circuit has emphasized, \u201ccar theft is a crime that often involves the use of weapons and other instruments of assault that could jeopardize officer safety, and thus justifies a protective frisk under Terry.\u201d United States v. Bullock, 510 F.3d 342, 347 (D.C. Cir. 2007).<\/p>\n

The cases to this effect are legion. See, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Rivera<\/a>, 353 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir. 2003) (approving pat-down when \u201c[i]nability to provide proof of registration gives rise to suspicion of a stolen vehicle\u201d); United States v. Rowland<\/a>, 341 F.3d 774, 784 (8th Cir. 2003) (\u201c[L]aw enforcement could infer the vehicle might be stolen, and as possible car thieves [defendants] might possess weapons.\u201d); United States v. Shranklen<\/a>, 315 F.3d 959, 963 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding that defendants \u201cmight have stolen the car and, therefore, might have weapons in the car that they used during the theft or had available in case they were discovered\u201d); United States v. Tuggle, 284 Fed.Appx. 218, 227 (5th Cir. 2008) (\u201c[W]hen [defendant]\u2019s conduct reasonably suggested that he might be part of that auto-theft ring, the officers were justified in fearing for their safety.\u201d); United States v. Williams, 7 Fed.Appx. 876, 885 (10th Cir. 2001) (Officer\u2019s \u201cfrisk of [defendant] for weapons … was permissible under Terry\u201d in light of \u201cthe objectively reasonable suspicion that the van was stolen.\u201d) United States v. Bradley, 1990 WL 124205 at *2 (6th Cir. 1990) (\u201cIt was reasonable for the officer to believe that appellant, who was suspected of having recently been involved in a car theft, might have been armed and dangerous.\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-6351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6351","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=6351"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6351\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}