 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bolda v. Commonwealth11/10/1992
t Harris did not have any weapons in his possession which would have endangered the officer's safety. Indeed, the safety of the officer when conducting his duties is of paramount importance. However, Von Canon's seizure and search of the film canister during the weapon search was not permissible because the canister was not a weapon and
he did not search the canister for a weapon. Rather, he had a "hunch" that the canister contained illegal drugs and therefore conducted a generalized search.
Id. at 151, 400 S.E.2d at 194.
Jennings articulated no reason, except a search for weapons, to justify opening and inspecting the item he retrieved from Bolda's pocket. Because his stated reason for the search was unreasonable, he had no authority to proceed with a generalized search. "The purpose of limited search [for weapons] is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence." Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 32 L. Ed. 2d 612, 92 S. Ct. 1921 (1972). "The government may not exceed the boundaries of the consent, and any evidence gathered beyond those boundaries must be excluded." United States v. Martinez, 949 F.2d 1117, 1119 (11th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial Judge should have granted the motion to suppress.
Reversed and dismissed.
Disposition
Reversed and dismissed.
|