Court Opinion

ID: 9931775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:29:27.417999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:06.892567
License: Public Domain

I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding that the officer in this case "crossed the bounds of a protective patdown for weapons." Weapons are often concealed in boots and I believe that the officer was completely justified in looking inside the boot to make sure that the appellant did not have a gun hidden there. Looking inside a boot is not the type of privacy intrusion that the Supreme Court intended to prevent inTerry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889
(1968). The officer's actions were within the scope of a patdown search for weapons and did not violate Terry.
Therefore, I dissent. *Page 149