Opinion ID: 2556883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was The Police's Terry Search Proper?

Text: Loper's final claim is that the Superior Court erred in denying his suppression motion, because the police conducted a Terry [33] pat down search of his person without his consent or any articulable basis to suspect that he was involved in criminal activity or that he possessed a weapon. Alternatively, Loper contends that even if he voluntarily told the police that he had weed, that admission did not cure the absence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain him after the initial traffic stop. Loper's claim fails for want of a factual predicate. After reviewing the evidence, the Superior Court concluded that Loper had not been subjected to a pat down searcha conclusion that Loper has not shown is erroneous. We will not disturb the trial court's factual findings absent clear error. [34] Nor was Loper's consent tainted. Loper relies on State v. Heath to support his legal argument that where a person who is illegally detained consents to a search, that consent is deemed tainted by the illegal detention, and is therefore ineffective to justify the subsequent search. [35] Loper's argument is without merit. As earlier discussed, the initial traffic stop and the subsequent investigation were constitutionally valid. Therefore, they could not have tainted Loper's voluntary consent. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Loper's suppression motion on this basis.