United States v. Dortch, No. 16-3178 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence of a firearm from a pat-down. The court held that the pat-down was constitutional because the officer did not search or seize defendant in a constitutional sense until the pat-down, which was justified by reasonable suspicion. In this case, the short stretch of street where the officer encountered defendant had a more specific and direct connection to guns, defendant's heavy coat was unseasonable in June and was thus unusual and suspicious, defendant had an apparent association with two illegally stopped vehicles in which guns had been found, and defendant's movements were suggestive of concealment and preparation for action.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Police officer's conduct in walking up to defendant and asking what he was doing standing in the street and talking to passengers in a car was not a pre-pat-down seizure; considering all of the circumstances, the officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and was warranted in conducting a pat-down search for his safety and the safety of the other officers on the scene.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.