Wallace

United States v. Wallace

Good Law
44 F. App'x 85
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 29, 2002No. 01-50322; D.C. No. CR-99-01243-NAJCalifornia504 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendanb-Appellant Ruel Antonio Wallace (‘Wallace”) contends a pat down search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and invalidated his subsequent consent to search his vehicle. The Fourth Amendment, however, permits an officer to pat down a driver ordered out of his car after a lawful traffic stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual may be armed and dangerous. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 118 , 119 S.Ct. 484 , 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998). 1 Here, the suspect lacked identification and the officer knew that the driver was a narcotics suspect because a DEA unit had asked him to make the stop. Although the officer did not know the specifics of the investigation, he testified he did know from prior experience that narcotics suspects are often armed. On this combination of facts, the district court correctly concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion that the suspect was dangerous and a protective pat down was proper. See United States v. Thompson, 597 F.2d 187, 190 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. $109,179 in United States Currency, 228 F.3d 1080, 1086 (9th Cir.2000).

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Wallace’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.