Opinion ID: 4522450
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonable Suspicion to Pat Down

Text: The district court also concluded that even if defendant did not give consent, the pat down was necessary for the officers’ safety. Hr’g Tr. at 74. “A concern for officer safety permits a variety of police responses in differing circumstances, including ordering a driver . . . out of a car during a traffic stop, . . . and conducting pat-down searches ‘upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous.’” Bennett v. City of Eastpointe, 410 F.3d 810, 822 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted) (quoting Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 118 (1998)). An officer may pat down a person in the course of a Terry stop if he can “point to particular facts from which he reasonably 2 When tested, defendant’s blood alcohol content was .193, well above the legal limit for operating a vehicle. -7- Case No. 19-1367, United States v. Wilson inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 64 (1968). Officer Spratt testified that defendant’s hand went to his waistband at least twice while defendant was still in the car, and, in his experience, the waistband was a common place to keep a weapon. This movement led the officer to suspect that defendant might have a weapon. See United States v. Noble, 762 F.3d 509, 521 (6th Cir. 2014) (Officers may “perform a ‘pat-down’ of a driver . . . upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous.” (citation omitted)). Furthermore, the car was not registered to defendant and the owner of the car did not live in the area. The circumstances under which the officers found defendant reasonably led them to believe he might be armed. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. -8- Case No. 19-1367, United States v. Wilson