People v. Thomas

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Campbell

    118 Cal.App.3d 588 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 19 times
    In People v. Campbell (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 588, 596-597, the reviewing court found a defendant had been arrested when, in the course of a drug surveillance, officers approached him in an airport with guns drawn, handcuffed him and removed him to another part of the airport.

    An officer is justified in making a pat-down search if he has objective cause to believe that the suspect is armed or that the search is necessary for the officer's own safety. ( People v. Thomas (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 231, 234 [ 93 Cal.Rptr. 877].) Officer Welch articulated his belief that the appellant was armed and justified this belief by testifying that there had been killings in connection with this investigation.

  2. People v. Nay

    No. H040384 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2016)

    "[T]here must be objective factors which reasonably indicate to the officer that this type of a search is necessary for his protection." (People v. Thomas (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 231, 234.) Bulky clothing, like loose clothing, can be used to conceal a weapon.

  3. People v. Miller

    H040879 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2016)

    However, objective factors must reasonably indicate to the officer that such a search is necessary for protection. (People v. Thomas (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 231, 234.) Bulky or loose clothing can be used to conceal a weapon.

  4. People v. Russ

    A139590 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 7, 2014)

    "The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger." (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 27; see also People v. Thomas (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 231, 234 ["[T]here must be objective factors which reasonably indicate to the officer that this type of a search is necessary for his protection"]; People v. Avila (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1074 ["[T]he officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the crux of the issue is whether a reasonably prudent person in the totality of the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety was in danger. [Citation.]"].