AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the defendant being convicted for possession of a controlled substance, specifically heroin found in syringes during a pat-down search. This search occurred when federal and state law enforcement agents were attempting to apprehend a homicide suspect at a gas station. The defendant was observed standing beside the suspect's vehicle. As federal marshals approached, shots were fired, leading the defendant to drop to the ground while the suspect fled. An agent, not knowing who fired the shots or the targets, searched the defendant for injuries and weapons, finding the syringes containing heroin (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the pat-down search was unlawful, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found during the search. The defendant also contended that the federal marshals created the exigency by firing shots, which should render the search unlawful. Additionally, the defendant claimed there was no individualized, articulable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous, noting a lack of connection between him and the homicide suspect and absence of behavior raising safety concerns (paras 3-6).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The summary does not explicitly detail the appellee's arguments, but it can be inferred that the appellee defended the lawfulness of the pat-down search based on the circumstances, including the attempt to apprehend a homicide suspect and the presence of shots fired, which supported a reasonable belief that the defendant might be armed and dangerous (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the pat-down search of the defendant was lawful under the circumstances of attempting to apprehend a homicide suspect and the presence of shots fired (paras 2-6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for possession of a controlled substance, rejecting the defendant's arguments against the lawfulness of the pat-down search (para 7).

Reasons

• The decision was delivered by Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep and Kristina Bogardus concurring. The court held that the circumstances of the case, including the attempt to apprehend a homicide suspect and the firing of shots, supported a reasonable belief that the defendant might be armed and dangerous, justifying the protective frisk. The court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's factual determinations and reviewed the legal conclusions de novo, affirming the lawfulness of the search. The court also addressed the defendant's argument that the exigency was impermissibly created by the federal marshals firing shots, noting the record was unclear on this point but emphasizing the importance of the information known to the officer at the time of the search. The court concluded that Agent McCarty's safety concerns were reasonable under the circumstances, thereby permitting the pat-down search (paras 1-7).