Repeater
Regular Member
imported post
This is yet another opinion from the Fourth Circuit where Judge Wilkinson helps the government at the expense of liberty.
Scotty Lee Carico tells the police during a traffic stop that he has a handgun. The handgun is plainly visible, which the court oddly refers to as an "unauthorized weapon" - why would it say that? Here's what the court says:
This is yet another opinion from the Fourth Circuit where Judge Wilkinson helps the government at the expense of liberty.
Scotty Lee Carico tells the police during a traffic stop that he has a handgun. The handgun is plainly visible, which the court oddly refers to as an "unauthorized weapon" - why would it say that? Here's what the court says:
The court does not define "multiple weapons" or "large quantity of cash" but the implications for Virginians and elsewhere in the Fourt Circuit are scary.It is undisputed that Carico was stopped by law enforcement because an unauthorized weapon was visible in his vehicle. The officer was therefore permitted to perform a protective search of the vehicle to secure the weapon.
A law enforcement officer may conduct a protective search of the passenger compartment of a lawfully stopped automobile where the “officer possesses a reasonable belief based on ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant’ the officer in believing that [a] suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons” within the vehicle. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049-50 (1983) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)).
It is undisputed that Carico was stopped by law enforcement because an unauthorized weapon was visible in his vehicle. The officer was therefore permitted to perform a protective search of the vehicle to secure the weapon. United States v. Elston, 479 F.3d 314, 320 (4th Cir. 2007) (search of vehicle in Terry stop authorized if officer has reasonable belief that suspect is dangerous and may gain control of weapons in vehicle, even if suspect is restrained at the time). Moreover, Carico’s disclosure that there was a firearm on the front passenger seat further highlighted the danger Carico posed to the officer. Thus, the initial search of the vehicle for weapons was proper.
Carico additionally argues that the officer did not have probable cause to perform a more thorough search of the vehicle, including its trunk. However, it is well established that, “‘If a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband,’” an officer may search the car without a warrant. “If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search.”
The law enforcement officer found multiple weapons and a large quantity of cash during his initial search of the vehicle. Under these circumstances, there was more than a fair probability that either controlled substances or other weapons were present. Considering the nature of the suspected contraband, the scope of the officer’s search was appropriate.