Court Opinion

ID: 9700150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:13:14.058169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:49.897589
License: Public Domain

MACK, Associate Judge,
concurring:
While I concur in the result, under the factual situation presented, I suggest that the government should have produced the officer [Simms] who recovered the gun from appellant in order that he too could have testified as to the specific and articu-lable facts which led him to frisk appellant. Cf. Rushing v. United States, D.C.App., 381 A.2d 252 (1977) (government’s pretrial showing of grounds for search inadequate where the only officer present when events allegedly triggering search occurred did not testify).