State v. Naranjo

¶ 25 My colleagues reverse Naranjo’s conviction on the ground that Officer Valentine exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry search by lifting Naranjo’s pant leg to visually search the ankle area. At the heart of the main opinion’s conclusion that Valentine’s search was impermissible under Terry is my *292colleagues’ determination that Valentine was not a credible witness. Despite Valentine’s testimony to the contrary, my colleagues find that Naranjo was “subdued” at the time of the search of the right pant leg.1

¶26 While it is true that we grant no deference to the trial court’s application of…