in trial for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, defendant’s claim that he was in an area known for drug dealing on an errand opened the door to the government’s admission of the fact that the defendant had tested positive for drugs after his arrest
How later courts described this case
- in trial for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, defendant’s claim that he was in an area known for drug dealing on an errand opened the door to the government’s admission of the fact that the defendant had tested positive for drugs after his arrest
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WAGNER, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
Assuming the validity of the investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), I cannot agree that the search and retrieval of the chapstick from Marino was justified under Terry principles. Police are not at liberty to conduct a search of a citizen for contraband every time they make an investigatory stop. Id. at 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ; see Upshur v. United States, 716 A.2d 981, 983 (D.C.1998). “Before [a police officer] *133 places his hand on the person of a citizen in search of anything, he must have constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so.” Upshur, 716 A.2d at 984 . The police did not have such grounds in this case. Here, the officer grabbed Mari-no and moved him back to search under his foot in order to recover the chapstick which he suspected might contain drugs. This was simply a stop and search for drugs. In my view, this was an inadequate basis for a seizure under Terry . See Terry, 392 U.S. at 29 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 ; Upshur, 716 A.2d at 983-84 . Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the court.