Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206774/United-States-v-Koorosh-Roach-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:07:03+00:00

Document:
Chief Judge, and SHEDD, Circuit Judge.
After Koorosh Dashtianpoor Roach was indicted in U.S.
cause and unreasonably prolonged his detention.
search, and detention were justified under the Fourth Amendment.
passengers for two minutes until the vehicle departed.
back, before getting out less than two minutes later.
dog alert, though they found no heroin.
arrived, its driver entered the residence and exited promptly.
When a fourth vehicle arrived, Roach again got into the car.
other officers over the radio.
Officers Kruger and Burnem received the information.
the car, had rushed out while leaving the door open.
waistband area with both hands.
Officer Kruger ordered Roach out of the car.
I have nothing on me.
off to Officer Burnem while he went to inspect the car.
a golf ball size bulge by Roachs buttocks area.
alerted near Roachs car seat.
Detective Pritchard then patted down Roach.
confirmed the bulge, he asked Roach to remove the object.
Pritchard did not feel comfortable uncuffing him.
total of .44 grams of heroin and .67 grams of cocaine base.
Roach was placed under arrest.
weapon by moving it around his waistband with his elbow.
seized during the traffic stop.
favorable to the Government, the prevailing party below.
United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
officers lacked justification to frisk him more than once.
hazardous risks of traffic stops for police officers.
v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049 (1983).
Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 410, 415 (1997).
that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000).
carrying a weapon for protection).
Sakyi, 160 F.3d at 169.
suspicion of danger to the officer.
Roachs involvement in the distribution of heroin.
carrying or using a weapon.
officers suspicion that he possessed a weapon.
at the time preoccupied with the driver.
back door of the car and ordered Roach to put his hands up.
initial Terry frisk for the presence of weapons.
to detect a weapon on him allayed any reasonable suspicion.
impeded Officer Krugers patdown by defying his instructions.
concerned about something Officer Kruger might find.
Officer Burnem in order to turn his attention to the vehicle.
suspicious bulge by Roachs buttocks for the first time.
that Officer Kruger alone could check him for weapons.
potential concealment of a weapon in the vehicle.
establishing police command over the scene.
United States v. Foreman, 369 F.3d 776, 781 (4th Cir.
out, accurate suspicion that Roach was armed.
required to justify the search.
concerns that he was concealing something on his person.
substance in the bulge was illegal, Roach nodded affirmatively.
believe Roach was hiding drugs in his pants.
armed and rendered the subsequent frisks unlawful.
search his pants unless he believed the bulge to be a weapon.
But Roach misstates the governing law.
Mendez, 626 F.3d 203, 213 (4th Cir. 2010).
therefore justified under the plain feel doctrine.
where Roach had been sitting.
Detective Pritchards search of Roach.
initial justification for the traffic stop.
for the narcotics-detection dog to arrive.
States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 336 (4th Cir. 2008).
lasted longer than was necessary, given its purpose.
or a reasonable suspicion that illegal activity is afoot.
driver and passengers they are free to leave.
measurably extend the duration of the stop.
e.g., United States v. McFarley, 991 F.2d 1188, 1193 (4th Cir.
to await arrival for narcotics-detection dog).
thereby contributed to the duration of the stop.
the added delay about which he complains).
stop did not last longer than necessary.
Branch, 537 U.S. at 336.
frisked, and the bulge discovered in Roachs buttocks area.
courts denial of Roachs motion to suppress.

References: v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.