United States v. Richard Carrillo, United States of America v. Ernest Benavidez

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that substantially the same question was “non-investigatory” because it “called for a ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ not a testimonial response”
• indicating that misconduct does not occur when a prosecutor’s misstatements “[have] earmarks of inadvertent mistake”
• concluding that the officer’s question as to whether the defendant had any drugs or needles on his person was a “narrowly tailored question” and thus “was a reasonable attempt by a police officer to insure his personal safety in the midst of a search”
• concluding that the officer’s question as to whether the defendant had any drugs or nee- dles on his person was a “narrowly tailored question” and thus “was a reasonable attempt by a police officer to insure his personal safety in the midst of a search”
• holding that asking a suspect whether he “had any drugs or needles on his person” was within the public safety exception because “the danger of transmission of disease or contact with harmful substances is real and serious enough; a pressing need for haste is not essential.”
• upholding officer’s questioning of suspected drug dealer regarding whether he had any drugs on his person

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).