DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer
facebook.com/MyDUI

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

State v. Lafond

2/21/2003

that possibility "defendant's heavy coat could be concealing weapons" was insufficient to justify frisk).


Because we hold that Officer Salis had no reasonable suspicion that Lafond was armed and dangerous so as to justify a Terry frisk, it necessarily follows that he had no probable cause to justify an outright search of Lafond. Our holding also forecloses the State's argument that the search of Lafond can be justified under the "plain feel" doctrine. That doctrine requires that the officer is lawfully in a position to feel the contraband, see Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 379, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2139 (1993), and, as we have concluded, in this case Officer Salis simply had no right "'to touch the person questioned.'" Terry, 392 U.S. at 11 n.5, 88 S. Ct. at 1874 n.5 (citation omitted). See also Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 93 n.5, 100 S. Ct. 338, 343 n.5 (1979) ("Since we conclude that the initial patdown of [defendant] was not justified under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, we need not decide whether or not the presence on [defendant's] person of 'a cigarette pack with objects in it' yielded probable cause to believe that [defendant] was carrying any illegal substance.").


CONCLUSION


Even if Officer Salis's questioning beyond what was necessary for the traffic stop was proper, and even if Lafond's consent to search the vehicle was untainted by any improper prolonging of the detention, the patdown and search of Lafond's person was illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Given the inherent nature of the crimes being investigated, and in the absence of reasonable suspicion suggesting the presence of weapons, there simply was no occasion to frisk Lafond. The district court's denial of the motion to suppress is reversed, and the case is remanded for such further proceedings as may now be appropriate.


Gregory K. Orme, Judge


WE CONCUR:


Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge


Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge






Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Utah DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
FDP  |   RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads  |  Partner Websites  |  Draeger FAQ
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Trading Partners | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | DUI Forum | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories  | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.