Print

Training >> Browse Articles >> Legal & Liability

+3

Companion with Gun May Provide Reasonable Suspicion for Pat-Down

In Rajaee El-Amin v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 2005 Va. LEXIS 17 (2005), the Supreme Court of Virginia considered the authority of a police officer to conduct a pat-down of a subject based upon their association with a subject found to be in possession of a firearm. While the court declined to adopt an “automatic companion” rule, the court found that the close association with a subject found to be in possession of a gun, would be a factor in supporting a pat-down search.

“On the evening of August 4, 2000, the Richmond Police received an anonymous tip that six young black males were at the corner of Front Street and Fifth Avenue smoking marijuana.” Upon arriving, the officers observed 4 black males and approached them, asking if they could speak to them Two of the males came to the police while two remained in the background. When two other officers arrived, a subject who had remained in the background with El-Amin, turned away from the officers and reached in his waistband. An officer drew his weapon and told the subject to remove his hands from his waistband. When the subject failed to comply, an officer grabbed him, frisked him, and recovered a pellet-gun from his pants. The officer yelled “Gun” to alert the other officers. At that point, “Officer Kuzniewski determined that, because the four individuals were traveling in a ‘pack,’ for ‘safety reasons’ he should pat down the other members of the group…Although he had no particularized safety concerns as to El-Amin prior to learning that the fourth individual had a gun, Officer Kuzniewski conducted a pat-down of El-Amin and found a .38 caliber revolver.” El-Amin challenged the admissibility of the firearm on the grounds that the officer had no particularized suspicion to justify frisking El-Amin.

In analyzing the actions of the officers in this case, the court noted that their initial approach of the four subjects amounted to a consensual conduct since the officers had done nothing to indicate that the four subjects were not free to leave. In arguing that the seizure of the gun was valid, the state argued that officers should be able to frisk the “companion” of anyone found in possession of a firearm. The court, consistent with numerous decisions from other jurisdictions declined to adopt, the “companion rule” for frisks. Instead the court examined whether or not an officer in Kuzniewski’s shoes would have reasonable suspicion to believe that El-Amin was in possession of a weapon.

In upholding the frisk of El-Amin, the court noted that the encounter occurred during the evening in a “high-crime” area; the officer believed that the four individuals were in a group; and, El-Amin and the other subject did not withdraw from the original consensual encounter and remained in close proximity to the officers and other subjects. The court concluded: “on the totality of facts presented here, upon learning that the fourth individual had a hand gun, Officer Kuzniewski was warranted in inferring that the inherent tendency toward violence demonstrated by one group member carrying a gun raised reasonable and particularized safety concerns as to other members of the same group…The totality of the facts in this case-place, time, discovery of weapons, and group activity- validates the pat-down search…”

Key Points:

“Officer Safety” without supporting facts and circumstances will not support a frisk.

Frisks based on the sole reason of “companionship” will not be justified.

Officers should articulate factors concerning the location, time of day, conduct indicating group/gang activity or conduct of group members indicating violence as well as officer experience when documenting a frisk for weapons.


+3
  • 1979_max50

    Robocop33

    almost 7 years ago

    14600 Comments

    I am a bit surprised that the Supreme court even took this case. I was always under the impression that a "pat down" was lawful whenever you questioned anyone "for the safety of the Officer". I know you were not allowed to do a search but you were allowed to "pat down" the subject. If you found a hard object you could then retrieve it but you were not allowed to removed a soft bulge. Of course if this soft object happened to be above the hard object that could possible be a weapon and fell out when you removed the hard object, It then became a "in plain sight" object in case it happened to be unlawful substances. Did this ruling change since I worked? It was based if memory serves me correctly on a pat down of a suspect loitering in front of a pawn shop or jewelry store acting in a suspicious manner. The officer conducted a pat down for his safety and discovered a firearm. The search was upheld as the officer was only doing so for his safety and not to discover evidence,

PoliceLink School Finder

Save time in your search for a criminal justice degree program. Use PoliceLink's School Finder to locate schools online and in your area.

Get Info

* In the event that we cannot find a program from one of our partner schools that matches your specific area of interest, we may show schools with similar or unrelated programs.

Recent Activity

3124185-templar_max30
MaxVirtus commented on: "Ofc Shadow", 1 minute ago.
3124185-templar_max30
MaxVirtus commented on: "GSP_Trooper", 2 minutes ago.
Img_1050_max30
Irishcop1961 commented on: "Delores Rockett", 3 minutes ago.
3124185-templar_max30
MaxVirtus commented on: "tendercrusader25", 3 minutes ago.
Patch_max30
SE851 gave a thumbs up to The Topic "Aloha", 3 minutes ago.