United States v. Maple

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. W.D.Mo.: RS still required for a Long protective weapons search of a car

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallJanuary 11, 2017

    Defendant was stopped in his driveway, and there was also an effort to call the search an inventory as an excuse, which is also rejected. United States v. Maple, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181403 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 14, 2016), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2516 (W.D.Mo. Jan. 9, 2017):Reckless application of the Long protective search rule has the potential to effectively eviscerate the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment when a vehicle stop is undertaken by law enforcement officers. Unlike the limitations imposed on a valid “automobile search” and a “search incident to arrest,” the Long protective search rule [still valid under Gant] (like the Terry analysis) is constrained only by the reasonable suspicion requirement.In this case, however, the Court concludes that Officer Infranca did not have the requisite reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective search of the passenger compartment of the Avenger.