My jurisdiction is: Texas
My jurisdiction is: Texas
I am interested in Terry v. Ohio and how and if it applies to the following circumstances. During a child welfare investigation an investigator with the police department and investigator with child protective services arrived at an address (home) based on the suspicion that narcotics were being sold from this address. Upon arrival the investigator was approached by the defendant. The defendant had exited the house and approached the investigator in a public area (side walk and street) and stated that he wanted to speak with the investigator. The defendant was in an agitted state. The defendant walked to his vehicle to smoke a cigerette. The vehicle was parked on the street. The investigator understood that the defendant had been arrested a few weeks before and was in possession of a handgun at the time of this arrest. In addition a rifle was observed in defendant's vehicle only moments before by the investigator. The defendant displayed furtive movement while he entered and then sat in the vehicle. With these specific and articuable facts that the defendant was armed he was called out of the vehicle and frisked. The defendant resisted the frisk and arrested for resisting. Upon a canine alert to the vehicle a firearm and methamphetamine were located. The question is this? Did the investigator have the legal right to stop or call the defendant to them to conduct the frisk? Is a "stop" required in this circumstance or is the suspicion that he defendant was armed during this investigation enough to pat down the defendant to insure the safety of the investigators?
My jurisdiction is: Texas
I am interested in Terry v. Ohio and how and if it applies to the following circumstances. During a child welfare investigation an investigator with the police department and investigator with child protective services arrived at an address (home) based on the suspicion that narcotics were being sold from this address. Upon arrival the investigator was approached by the defendant. The defendant had exited the house and approached the investigator in a public area (side walk and street) and stated that he wanted to speak with the investigator. The defendant was in an agitted state. The defendant walked to his vehicle to smoke a cigerette. The vehicle was parked on the street. The investigator understood that the defendant had been arrested a few weeks before and was in possession of a handgun at the time of this arrest. In addition a rifle was observed in defendant's vehicle only moments before by the investigator. The defendant displayed furtive movement while he entered and then sat in the vehicle. With these specific and articuable facts that the defendant was armed he was called out of the vehicle and frisked. The defendant resisted the frisk and arrested for resisting. Upon a canine alert to the vehicle a firearm and methamphetamine were located. The question is this? Did the investigator have the legal right to stop or call the defendant to them to conduct the frisk? Is a "stop" required in this circumstance or is the suspicion that he defendant was armed during this investigation enough to pat down the defendant to insure the safety of the investigators?
