U.S. v. Richardson

Dist. Ct. did not err in partially denying defendant's motion to suppress certain statements made to police officers, as well as physical evidence seized after traffic stop for speeding and after police dog alerted police to presence of drugs in defendant's car. Defendant conceded that police made lawful initial stop and pat-down of defendant, and Ct. rejected defendant's claim that officer could not remove cocaine base found in defendant's pocket to inspect it where officer testified that he was unsure that hard lump in defendant's pocket was not weapon. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that statements defendant initiated with police officers after his arrest were voluntary and admissible even under circumstances where defendant had not been given Miranda warnings by time of said statements since defendant had not been previously subjected to coercive interrogation at time of volunteered statements.