D.Neb.: Defendant was clearly not free to leave and his 30 minute questioning was unreasonable and not even de minimus as in Rodriguez

The stop here was overlong under Rodriguez, but, of course, happened before. Here, however, the defendant was told he was free to leave, but the court finds that “There is no doubt that the defendant did not feel he was free to leave.” The continued stop was 30 minutes long and far more than de minimus and was unreasonable. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Englehart, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67111 (D. Neb. May 22, 2015), R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67693 (D.Neb. May 7, 2015).

Defendant’s excessive nervousness and being overly fidgety justified extending the stop for a drug dog to arrive under Rodriguez. State v. Brock, 2015 W. Va. LEXIS 683 (May 22, 2015).*

Because this state requires a motion to suppress and a trial objection, the trial objection only being made to a little bit of all the evidence admitted, there is no reversible search issue. State v. Hargett, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 419 (May 19, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.