McDaniels, H. v. Rutter, M.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• patfrisk of defendant proper where he was with person being arrested for trespassing and he made furtive movements
• officers legitimately in presence of group because one individual was trespassing, had the right to conduct patfrisk where defendant disregarded specific instruction to take his hands out of his pockets
• officers investigating possible trespass in high crime area “not required to accept risk of . . . ambiguity” posed by defendant who disregarded command to take his hands out of his pockets
• “The term ‘high crime area’ is itself a general and conclusory term that should not be used to justify a stop or a frisk, or both, without requiring the articulation of specific facts demonstrating the reasonableness of the intrusion”
• “Two questions arise in connection with a determination whether a police officer had a sufficient, reasonable basis to conduct a patfrisk: . . . and (2) did the officer have a reasonable basis to suspect that this party was likely to be armed and dangerous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).