Court Opinion

ID: 9462793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:50:37.86455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:47.581273
License: Public Domain

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Although I join fully in my Brother Gee’s dissent in this case, I write separately to emphasize my general agreement in other contexts with the majority’s statement of the law.
I would hold that the presumption of reasonableness established by objective indicia of danger can be overcome by the officer’s own admission that an “unreasonable” (in the fourth amendment sense) standard practice, rather than any specific fear, prompted the search. When objective indicia point to no danger, however, testimony by the officer that he was frightened cannot validate a search. As Judge Gee noted, the officer’s fear must be based on “specific and articulable facts.” As the majority put it, “[Sjubjective whims by officers [cannot] justify a protective frisk.”