W.D.Okla.: Def consented to further questioning when also told he was free to go

“The evidence shows that Trooper Rohr issued the warning, returned Defendant’s papers to him, told him to have a safe trip and turned away from Defendant’s pickup truck to return to his patrol car. He then turned back and asked Defendant if he could question him but also told Defendant he was free to go. Trooper Rohr’s demeanor was not threatening or coercive. Defendant agreed to answer Trooper Rohr’s questions. Under these circumstances, the Court finds a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe he was free to leave or disregard Trooper Rohr’s request to ask additional questions.” It was consent and not coercive. United States v. Cabrera, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64994 (W.D. Okla. May 19, 2015).

Defendant’s stop for an illegible and faded temporary paper tag was proper. Pabst v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5055 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) May 19, 2015).*

The video of the stop showed defendant unsafely drifting out of the lane. The video also did not belie the officer’s statement supporting the probable cause for Franks purposes, so defendant failed in that showing. Dashcam video was not amenable to the subtleties of what officers observe standing in front of the suspect. Dunn v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5196 (Tex. App. – Ft. Worth May 21, 2015).*