Court Opinion

ID: 9795206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:22:30.865898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:27:17.170184
License: Public Domain

*598Beier, J.,
concurring: I respectfully concur with my colleagues in their result in this case and in most of the rationale for that result. I depart from their reasoning only on the point in time when the encounter between Officer Bachmann and the defendant ceased to be consensual and became an investigative detention.
Like Judge Caplinger of the Court of Appeals panel, I think that point occurred when the officer asked defendant and his companion to lift their shirts so that the officer could be reassured about whether they were armed. This was a Terry search for the protection of the officer, and defendant’s prompt compliance cannot be logically or legally equated with consent. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 18, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). Because the officer possessed no reasonable suspicion at that point in time to justify such a search, defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
Allegrucci, J. and Lockett, J., Retired, join in the foregoing concurring opinion.