holding as factors justifying investí- *7 gatory stop prolonged eye contact with officers, nervousness, and walking at a rapid pace
How later courts described this case
- holding as factors justifying investí- *7 gatory stop prolonged eye contact with officers, nervousness, and walking at a rapid pace
- holding as factors justifying investigatory stop prolonged eye contact with officers, nervousness, and walking at a rapid pace
- consent to search presumed voluntary "where the [passenger] who remains silent knows that the driver has given his verbal consent to a search"
- principles of Hodari D. guide analysis
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*191 Judge COZORT
concurring, with separate opinion.
I am compelled to comment on the dissent’s comparison of the stop in this case with the “typical airport stop case” and the dissent’s apparent conclusion that the evidence must be suppressed because the intrusion of the officers here was greater than that of the typical airport stop. That conclusion is unrealistic and ignores the need for the officers to make appropriate plans for their safety and that of innocent charter flight workers and other bystanders. The testimony in this case demonstrates admirable caution, given the situation, on the part of the officers. The defendant’s darkened vehicle was parked in a dark area adjoining little alleyways. These circumstances must be considered when determining what constitutes appropriate constitutional intrusiveness. We should not demand, as the dissent apparently does, that one officer approach a darkened vehicle in a dark area, occupied by suspected drug couriers who may be armed, to “ask a few questions,” in complete disregard of the safety of himself, other officers and bystanders. The stop in this case, though longer and with more officers than that approved in an open well-lighted airport, was constitutional under the circumstances.