UT: Detaining passengers was unreasonable because there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause as to them

Detaining the passengers was unlawful under Brendlin. There was cause to detain the driver, but not the passengers, and the officer would not let them leave. State v. Baker, 2008 UT App 115, 182 P.3d 935, 601 Utah Adv. Rep. 6 (2008):

Moreover, the desire to check the vehicle for controlled substances did not require the presence of the passengers, 4 yet Officer Robertson admitted that the passengers were not free to leave while the K-9 unit was en route. Thus, the officers needed some reasonable articulable suspicion to lawfully detain Baker and the other passengers while awaiting the K-9 unit’s arrival. At the time Officer Robertson requested a K-9 unit, the officers had seen only one knife in a passenger’s possession (and not in Baker’s possession). While it was the early morning hours, and there were four passengers in the car, nothing in the officers’ testimony indicates any particularized suspicion involving criminal activity on the part of the passengers; thus, continued detention was impermissible.

Drug interdiction officer who admitted targetted car with out of state license to follow it until it committed a traffic violation was authorized to investigate traffic offenses as well, despite narrowly drawn statutes on their authority, because of the potential of vehicle forfeiture. King v. State, 2008 OK CR 13, 182 P.3d 842 (April 4, 2008).*

Since the initial stop produced reasonable suspicion, a twenty minute delay in arrival of a drug dog after defendant refused consent was not unreasonable. Love v. State, 252 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2008).*

Consent was voluntary and the request to look in the car permitted the officer to look in the trunk where he found cocaine in a supermarket bag. The stop was handled quite quickly from obtaining the driver’s license to getting back the information by radio. The fact that the officer would have sought a drug dog if consent was refused was never communicated to the defendant, so it was not a factor. Caraway v. State, 255 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. App. — Eastland 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.