CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE A. PACHECO,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-3376
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:14-cr-00258—James L. Graham, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 28, 2016
Before: DAUGHTREY, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellant Jose Pacheco appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a Terry stop and subsequent pat-down search. During this precautionary pat down for weapons, an officer discovered that Pacheco had over $3,000 in currency and a half-kilogram of brick cocaine in his cargo shorts. The district court found that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify the pat down of Pacheco for weapons, and that the cocaine and currency were properly seized pursuant to the plain-view and plain-feel doctrines.

Because the Terry stop, the removal of Pacheco from the vehicle, the pat down, and the seizure of contraband and currency were all within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, we affirm the district court’s decision.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOEL CROOKSTON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan Secretary of State, in her official capacity,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-2490
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
No. 1:16-cv-01109—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 28, 2016
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; GUY and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.
SUTTON, J., delivered the decision of the court in which GUY, J., joined. GUY, J. (pp.
7–8), delivered a separate concurrence. COLE, C.J. (pp. 9–13), delivered a separate dissent.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. One hundred and twenty-five years ago, Michigan enacted a law designed to protect the secret ballot by forbidding voters from exposing their marked ballots to others. Nine years ago, Apple introduced a cell phone capable of taking photographs and uploading them to the Internet. Thirty-two days ago, Joel Crookston sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the State from enforcing the Michigan law in the upcoming election so that he could take a “ballot selfie” with his cell phone and post it on social media. Four days ago, the district court granted his motion, which state officials immediately asked us to stay.

. . .

For these reasons, we grant the motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction.