Summary
This First Circuit opinion addresses whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion to prolong a lawful traffic stop and conduct a protective pat-down frisk after detecting the smell and sight of marijuana and observing the driver's furtive movements toward his waistband. The court reversed the district court's grant of a motion to suppress, holding that the odor of marijuana provided reasonable suspicion of a federal crime despite Rhode Island's decriminalization of small amounts, and that the defendant's repeated reaching toward his waistband justified a Terry frisk for officer safety. The case remands for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to lawfully prolong the traffic stop and call for backup.
- Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat‑down frisk of the defendant.
Holdings
- The officer had reasonable suspicion based on the odor and sight of marijuana and the defendant's nervous behavior, including repeated reaching toward his waistband, to lawfully prolong the stop and call for backup.
- The officer had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and dangerous based on the defendant's repeated reaching toward his waistband, target‑glancing, agitation, and the presence of marijuana, rendering the pat‑down lawful.
Key quotations
“Because Officer Bemis had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was committing such a crime, he was justified in calling for backup to help search the vehicle even though that course of action resulted in briefly prolonging the stop.” (*15)
“We conclude that the defendant's ongoing, unusual, and concerning behavior regarding his waistband would have led a reasonable officer to suspect that the defendant was armed and dangerous.” (*19)
Factual background
During a lawful traffic stop for erratic driving, Officer Bemis observed the smell and crumbs of marijuana, noted the defendant's trembling hand, and repeatedly saw the defendant reach toward his waistband. After calling for backup, the officer performed a pat‑down that revealed a firearm in the defendant's waistband.
Procedural history
The district court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the firearm and statements and denied the government's motion for reconsideration. The United States appealed the grant of suppression and the denial of reconsideration.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.