56 F.4th 195
1st Cir.2022Background
- Anonymous tip reported two men "passed out" in a parked Chevrolet Impala across from a diner in a high-crime, high-drug area on a weekday morning.
- Officer Pittman arrived, found the driver lethargic with bloodshot, pinpoint/glassy pupils; medical personnel had also engaged the passenger (Harrington).
- Harrington appeared lethargic, reached into the center console when asked to exit, moved slowly, and after exiting moved one hand toward his pocket when directed to place both hands on his head.
- Officer Pittman grabbed Harrington’s arm, conducted a pat-frisk, felt a large bulge at the waistband; Harrington said it was "drugs."
- The bulge contained packets later confirmed as fentanyl and heroin; Harrington was indicted, moved to suppress, pled guilty reserving appeal of the suppression denial, and appealed the district court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the initial stop | Harrington: once occupants were conscious the wellness check should have ended; no reasonable suspicion of crime. | Officer/Govt: tip + observations (time, location, signs of opioid use) gave particularized suspicion of illegal drug activity. | Court: Stop lawful; totality (anonymous tip, high-crime area, impairment signs) gave reasonable suspicion. |
| Length/extension of the stop | Harrington: officer unlawfully prolonged detention by investigating passenger after driver checked. | Officer/Govt: mission included assessing both occupants for impairment; suspicion had not dissipated. | Court: Extension permissible; assessing other occupant fit the mission and reasonable suspicion persisted. |
| Pat-frisk / belief suspect was armed and dangerous | Harrington: he was debilitated, nonthreatening; officer lacked objective basis to suspect a weapon. | Officer/Govt: totality (drug-impairment signs, reaching to center console, reaching toward pocket, high-crime area) warranted frisk for officer safety. | Court: Pat-frisk justified — objective, articulable facts supported reasonable suspicion that Harrington might be armed and dangerous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stops and limited pat-frisks when officer reasonably suspects crime and danger)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (officer may order occupant out of vehicle during lawful traffic stop to ensure safety)
- Florida v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in a high-crime area and suspicious behavior can weigh in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion assessed under totality of the circumstances; officers may draw on training)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable-suspicion requires particularized, objective basis)
- United States v. Romain, 393 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2004) (articulable facts standard; officer’s subjective motive irrelevant)
- United States v. McKoy, 428 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2005) (high-crime area plus ambiguous movement insufficient alone to justify frisk)
- United States v. Bustos-Torres, 396 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2005) (connection between drug activity and weapons can support frisk)
- United States v. Dubose, 579 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2009) (affirming frisk where drug-related context made weapons concealment likely)