U.S. v. Hill, 76-2188
Decision Date | 04 November 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 76-2188,76-2188 |
Citation | 545 F.2d 1191 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee HILL, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thomas Kleinschmidt, Asst. Federal Public Defender (argued), Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant-appellant.
Michael B. Scott, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Phoenix, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GOODWIN and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and INGRAM, * District Judge.
Robert Lee Hill appeals from a judgment of conviction of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), bank robbery. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.
Following a reported bank robbery wherein the perpetrator told a bank teller that he had a gun, demanded money, and lifting his shirt displayed to the teller what appeared to be a gun, police officers, summoned by radio call, arrived in the vicinity of the bank. One of the officers arrived at a location approximately 500 feet from the bank and while examining a parked auto observed Appellant Hill walking nearby. The officer, who did not suspect the Appellant of being the robber, requested that the latter stop. The officer's purpose was to inquire of Appellant as to whether he had seen anyone running through the area who matched the robber's description. The officer testified that while conversing with the Appellant he noticed a large bulge at Appellant's waistband which he suspected of being caused by a weapon. The officer raised Appellant's shirt which was hanging outside his trousers, thus exposing his waistband and revealing four to six rolls of currency stuffed therein.
Appellant challenges the legality of the search contending:
1. That the officer had insufficient reason to believe that Appellant constituted a danger to him;
2. That the lifting of the shirt was overly intrusive; and
3. That there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of a bulge at Appellant's waistband.
We reject each of Appellant's contentions.
If the officer as a reasonably prudent person under all the circumstances then existing would be warranted in the belief that his safety and that of others was in danger, then the limited weapons search is justified. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1967). We think that the facts of this case reasonably support the officer's belief that his own safety and that of others was in danger. The incident in question occurred within 500 feet of the scene of an armed bank robbery and within a short period of time of its commission. The officer testified as to the existence of the bulge in Appellant's clothing which was consistent with the presence of a weapon. Although Appellant's clothing did not match the description of that worn by the robber we are of opinion that all the circumstances amply justify the officer's concern for his own safety and justify a weapons search. Any armed person at such a time and place and in such physical and time proximity to an armed bank robbery could reasonably be suspected of being an actual or immediately potential danger. Appellant relies upon U. S. v. Coates, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 495 F.2d 160 (1974) and U. S. v. Sipes, 132 F.Supp. 537 (E.D.Tenn.1955) as being factually similar to the case at bar and supportive of Appellant's position. We do not find them to be so. Coates, supra, does not concern a situation where the investigating officer suspected that the person under investigation was armed and the facts were not sufficiently developed to allow the reviewing Court to evaluate the justification of the intrusion there in issue. Sipes, supra, did not involve a weapons search at all or the suspicion of the presence of a weapon with the consequent compromise of safety,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Taveras
...to a so-called ‘pat-down’ search.” Commonwealth v. Flemming, 76 Mass.App.Ct. 632, 925 N.E.2d 39, 43 (2010) (quoting United States v. Hill, 545 F.2d 1191, 1193 (9th Cir.1976)); see United States v. Reyes, 349 F.3d 219, 225 (5th Cir.2003) (finding that the officer did not exceed bounds of per......
-
State v. Williams
...(officer ordered suspect to lift shirt after observing triangular-shaped bulge near suspect's waistband); United States v. Hill, 545 F.2d 1191, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 1976) (officer ordered suspect to lift shirt when officer saw a bulge at waistband and officer had report of bank robber in area ......
-
United States v. Rodriguez
...that an order to lift one's shirt—which the suspect disregards—itself constitutes an illegal search. Further, in United States v. Hill , 545 F.2d 1191, 1193–94 (9th Cir. 1976), the Ninth Circuit held lifting a suspect's shirt to check for weapons was "well within the bounds established by T......
-
U.S. v. Casado
...two cases in which other courts have authorized protective searches that did not involve a patdown. In one, United States v. Hill, 545 F.2d 1191, 1192-93 (9th Cir.1976) (per curiam), a police officer, without first conducting a patdown, raised a suspect's shirt after seeing a large bulge at......
-
Table of Cases
...United States v., 195 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 1999) 40, 258 Hill, United States v., 393 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2005) 135 Hill, United States v., 545 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir. 1976) 18 Hill, United States v., 60 F.3d 672 (10th Cir. 1995) 183 Hines v. State, 514 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1987) 148 Hobson, State v., ......
-
Chapter 1. Investigative Detention
...use to justify a Terry frisk. Following are some examples: • Bulges in the clothing that might hide a weapon. United States v. Hill, 545 F.2d 1191 (9th Cir. 1976); State v. Lafond, 68 P.3d 1043 (Utah App. 2003). As one court noted, pockets were made to carry things, and an undefinable bulge......