Court Opinion

ID: 9489546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:18:26.023142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:35.339943
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur specially. This is a fact-intensive case, and I write separately to emphasize that the opinion applies the analysis in United States v. Flett, 806 F.2d 823, 827 (8th Cir.1986), and should not be read as a retreat from its holding rejecting the automatic companion rule and instead adopting a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, in which companionship alone is not enough to justify a pat-down search, but companionship is one circumstance to be considered in determining the overall reasonableness of the officer’s actions.
I also write separately to clarify that this case does not involve the subjective-objective issue recently resolved by the Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996).
Because I agree that in the present ease there was more than mere companionship, I concur in the decision to affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress.