However, the court made clear the detention must be brief as Terry does not authorize extended detention. Brown on the basis of the circumstances taken together that he was standing near a parked vehicle in an area known for drug sales and that there had been a report his friend had urinated in public. Here, the court found the officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain Mr. The court addressed the first two arguments applying the analysis from Terry that permits a police officer to detain an individual if the officer has an articulable suspicion that the individual is participating in illegal activity. (3) the search of his pockets was not based on probable cause. (2) there was no justification for patting down his outer clothing and (1) the police had no reasonable suspicion to detain him Brown appealed, arguing that police violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. He was arrested, charged with possession of narcotics, and convicted. Subsequently, contraband was discovered inside Mr. Brown, performed a protective pat-down, and searched his pockets. Based solely on this information, the police detained Mr. His friend, who was also present, had been reported to police for suspicion of public urination ( P.C. Brown was seen by the police standing next to a vehicle at a motel that was a known hangout for drug sales. 1 (1968), for the purpose of officer safety could extend to searching a suspect’s pockets where no evidence of weapons or contraband was readily apparent. Brown, the California Court of Appeals explored the issue of whether the well-established “stop and frisk” search upheld by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Brown (2021): Police Search of Pockets without Probable Cause Unconstitutional
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |