United States v. Campa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that removal of every “bulging” item detected during a pat- down was unlawful where the officer did not first “attempt to distinguish between” threatening and nonthreatening objects
• explaining that we “uphold a district court’s decision to deny a suppression motion if the decision is supported by any reasonable view of the evidence”
• holding that removal of a wallet and other bulging items from a suspect’s person, which were “readily identifiable by touch as non- weapons,” exceeded the limits of pat-down searches authorized by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (emphasis omitted)
• upholding a Terry stop and frisk of a defendant apprehended inside an apartment and moved into the hallway
• rejecting the defendant's argument that an officer's \stop and frisk\ moments before a search requires \stricter scrutiny of the consent\
• directing suspects to move a few steps to another room did not result in a de facto arrest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).