486 F. App'x 261
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Goode was a passenger in a Buick with Mark Isley in a restaurant parking lot where an informant arranged a gun sale.
- The informant signaled police that a firearm was in the car; police approached after the signal.
- Isley accelerated, struck two officers; Goode was ordered out, refused, and was handcuffed but not initially arrested.
- Officer Woertz conducted a pat-down; he felt packaging consistent with drugs and recovered narcotics from Goode.
- Goode was later charged; he moved to suppress the narcotics and to reveal the informant; district court denied.
- Goode pled guilty to three counts and challenged only the denial of suppression and informant-disclosure on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the narcotics were properly suppressed | Goode argues the search violated the Fourth Amendment. | Government contends the pat-down yielded permissible plain-feel evidence. | Affirmed; narcotics were properly seized under Terry. |
| Whether the informant's identity should be disclosed | Goode asserts the informant's testimony is necessary for a fair defense. | Government argues confidentiality and lack of specific need support denial. | Affirmed; no specific need shown for disclosure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1968) (reasonable suspicion suffices to search for weapons during stop)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1989) (lower standard than probability needed for searches)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981) (totality of circumstances governs reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (plain-feel doctrine during frisk permits seizure of contraband)
- United States v. Yamba, 506 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2007) (frisk scope allows further search if object identified as contraband)
- United States v. Johnson, 592 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2010) (surrounding a car with weapons drawn is not a de facto arrest)
- Rovario v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. Supreme Court 1957) (informant's confidentiality yields to defense relevance and fairness)
- United States v. Jiles, 658 F.2d 194 (3d Cir. 1981) (burden on defendant to show specific need for informant disclosure)