Opinion ID: 606248
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the pat-down search of Sosa valid?

Text: 26 The district court ruled that the pat-down search of Sosa, based on Officer Camacho's observation that Sosa had a bulge in his waist area, was a legitimate protective pat-down search. Appellant Sosa argues that there was no threat of harm and no reason to conduct a pat-down search in order to issue a traffic citation. Appellant's challenge must fail. 27 In Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), the Court held that pat-down searches at roadside encounters are permissible where an officer believes that the occupant of the vehicle may gain immediate control of [a] weapon[ ]. Id. at 1049. Further, [i]f, while conducting a legitimate Terry search ..., the officer ... discover[s] contraband other than weapons, he clearly cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. Id. at 1050. 28 The facts of Long are instructive in determining under what circumstances a protective search may occur. In Long, the suspect was outside the car and in the custody of a second officer when a search of the car occurred. Given these facts, the chances of the suspect in Long obtaining a weapon were clearly less than the probability presented to Officer Camacho. Here, Camacho noticed a conspicuous bulge coming from the waist area of Sosa. The bulge could very well have been a weapon and a quick movement could have placed Camacho in extreme danger. Further, the pat-down search was no more extensive than necessary. The search was thus a valid protective search consistent with Long. 29