United States v. Chas. Woo Quong

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an officer-safety search was unreasonable, in part, because \[t]his is also not a case where there was evidence that defendant was armed or had access to weapons that were not secured at the time of the search\
• holding that officer safety doctrine was inapplicable where “there was no evidence that the target shooters were vio- lent and heavily armed, and there was no other context to suggest that the presence of one weapon foretold another”
• requiring that an officer’s safety concerns be objectively reasonable
• “[W]here a defendant cooperates with police, in the absence of any threatening behavior by the defendant, generalized safety concerns * * * are insufficient to justify an officer-safety search.”
• “[W]here a defendant cooperates with police, in the absence of any threatening behavior by the defendant, generalized safety concerns * * * are insufficient to justify an officer-safety search.”
• “ [W]here a defendant cooperates with police, in the absence of any threatening behavior by the defendant, generalized safety concerns (in other words, facts that are not particular to the defendant) are insufficient to justify an officer safety search.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).