Federal Appeals Court Backs Traffic Stop Patdown
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:
US v. Rochin (US Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 12/13/2011)
[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]
More by The Newspaper
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- MaintenanceCosts A few more years like this and it will be impossible for anyone to underwrite insurance products, covering either homes or cars, pretty much anywhere along the Gulf coast or the southern Atlantic coast. The potential exposure is not something any private-sector insurer is big enough to handle. At that point, Congress is going to be faced with a question. Does the nation as a whole want to subsidize public insurance for existing communities in those areas at great cost, or would it rather leave them uninsurable, meaning that no one will be willing to underwrite mortgages anymore and properties become near-worthless?It's not a good time to be in the property and casualty insurance business. Asheville just proved vividly that no place in the US is safe from extreme climate-related losses.
- Lou_BC I pulled over into a road side rest stop once because the rain got so bad that I could barely see. Several other vehicles followed. As I sat there in my F150 watching, a Corvette wailed by. How could they not feel the vehicle hydroplaning? The steering on my heavy truck with excellent tires felt numb.
- Lou_BC Maloo GTSR W1
- MaintenanceCosts E34 M5 3.8. Not sure there has ever been a more charismatic engine than the S38B38.
- 28-Cars-Later Sadly, fewer motorists bothering to buy insurance [because they are unwanted illegal aliens] will likewise be used as an excuse to raise rates on those that do.
Comments
Join the conversation
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.
I wish the TSAa at the airport could only search you under such circumstances, instead of government imposed fear-mongering BD