Decision Here.
Police were investigating a series of residential burglaries. One of the suspects left a phone behind at one of the burglaries (idiot). The police went to the apartment which the phone was registered to, and heard someone inside, but no one answered the door. Then the police went to the parking lot and found a stolen car (associated with the same apartment).
While they were dealing with that, one of the neighbors told them that someone was running from apartment 108 (which they had just left). The went back to the apartment, and found Hood trying to get away. He was wearing a heavy jacket and fumbling with his pockets. They detained him at gunpoint, and handcuffed him after he told them he didn't know if he had a weapon. Turned out that he had a gun in his pocket, and that he was a convicted felon.
In court, Hood moved to suppress the gun. He argued that the police violated the Fourth Amendment by pointing guns at him and handcuffing him. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit explained that officers are allowed to use force during Terry stop to the extent that such steps are reasonably necessary to protect their personal safety and to maintain the status quo during the course of the stop. The courts evaluate our actions based on whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate.
Under these circumstances (investigating a burglary, high crime area, suspect fleeing, clothing suitable for concealing weapons, fumbling in pockets), it's pretty obvious that the officers acted appropriately. Hood's conviction was upheld.
No comments:
Post a Comment