By on December 21, 2011

As long as a police officer cites his own safety as the reason, he may frisk any motorist during a traffic stop and remove objects from his pockets, according to a ruling handed down Tuesday by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. A three-judge panel evaluated whether Officer Joe Moreno was following the law when he searched driver Ivan Rochin after he was pulled over in Albuquerque, New Mexico for driving with an expired registration.

“No one likes being pulled over for a traffic violation,” Judge Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Still, for most drivers the experience usually proves no more than an unwelcome (if often self-induced) detour from the daily routine. But not every traffic stop is so innocuous. Sometimes what begins innocently enough turns violent, often rapidly and unexpectedly. Every year, thousands of law enforcement officers are assaulted — and many are killed — in what seem at first to be routine stops for relatively minor traffic infractions.”

According to the latest available Federal Bureau of Investigation crime statistics, six officers were killed while pursuing a ordinary traffic infractions in 2009. That represents 0.0008 percent of the 706,886 sworn officers nationwide. Four of these patrolmen were gunned down as they approached the stopped vehicle, and only one was shot while standing at the offender’s vehicle window.

In this case, Rochin happened to match the description of someone wanted for a drive-by shooting. Moreno ordered him out of the car and performed a pat-down search that turned up glass pipes containing drugs. Rochin objected that it was absurd for the officer to remove the pipe from his pants on “officer safety” grounds, but the court ruled such a search was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

“A reasonable officer could have concluded that the long and hard objects detected in Mr. Rochin’s pockets might be used as instruments of assault, particularly given that an effort to ask Mr. Rochin about the identity of the objects had proved fruitless,” Gorsuch wrote. “To be sure, the pipes Mr. Rochin turned out to have aren’t conventionally considered weapons. But a reasonable officer isn’t credited with x-ray vision and can’t be faulted for having failed to divine the true identity of the objects.”

The court upheld Rochin’s conviction. A copy of the decision is available in a 20k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File US v. Rochin (US Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 12/13/2011)


Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

4 Comments on “Federal Appeals Court Backs Traffic Stop Patdown...”

  • avatar

    “Is that a crack pipe in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”

  • avatar

    As much as the civil libertardian (and, yes, I spelled that word as I meant it) who runs The Newspaper wishes that this ruling was some sort of example of judicial overreach, it’s really nothing more than an extension of the settled law under Terry vs. Ohio. Reading the specific facts of the case and the well reasoned majority opinion show that the defendant (or, more specifically, defense counsel) wasted everybody’s time.

    • 0 avatar

      it’s really nothing more than an extension of the settled law under Terry vs. Ohio

      The Newspaper sort of missed the point of this one. The defendant was trying to get the crack pipe tossed on Fourth Amendment grounds; had that been successful, that would have then forced the court to toss out the subsequent drug arrest, search of the car and weapons charge.

      Terry allows a patdown for weapons. The question was whether a crack pipe bears enough of a resemblance to a weapon to justify removing it from clothes. Apparently, it does.

      Moral of the story: Crackheads should put their pipes in the trunks of their cars. Be a smart junkie, and don’t carry the bad stuff on you or leave it out in plain sight while you’re driving. (While you’re at it, keeping the tags current on your car isn’t such a bad idea, either.)

  • avatar

    I wish the TSAa at the airport could only search you under such circumstances, instead of government imposed fear-mongering

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dal20402: The current DI 3.6L V6 is an excellent DOHC engine. But I’m skeptical that they’ll get this one...
  • dal20402: The Gen Vs have hardly been a shining example of “doing things well,” although the non-8600-rpm...
  • Inside Looking Out: It was branded Zhiguli in Russia. Lada (Samara/Sputnik) was much more modern (in 1984 when it...
  • IBx1: Pathetic automatic scum
  • CoastieLenn: Ah yes, “reeducation programs”. The exact same term that Scientology uses for the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber