A stop and a detention without reasonable suspicion suppressed

Defendant’s coming out of the shadows and getting into a vehicle is indicative of no crime, so his stop was invalid. Leroy v. State, 982 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 2008):

The State is unable to meet its burden. No reasonable suspicion of trespass arose from Appellant’s mere presence on the property. There was no BOLO with his description, nor was he observed to have an equipment or moving violation. Officer Hayes did not recognize Appellant as someone who had previously trespassed. Appellant was lawfully sitting in his vehicle and, although he was in a high crime area, standing alone, that was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.

Request for consent came after reasonable suspicion for a continued stop was required and was absent. State v. Luconios, 254 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. App. 2008):

Here, however, as in Granado, the search request came well after completion of the traffic stop. Therefore, Mr. Ross’s nervousness and the conflicting accounts cannot provide the factual predicate for reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot to justify detention and further questioning of Mr. Ross beyond the completion of a traffic stop. State v. Dickerson, 172 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Mo.App. E.D. 2005). Corporal Seaton himself admitted that at the time he told Mr. Ross he was free to go, he did not have probable cause to detain Mr. Ross and search the car. While he had a feeling that criminal activity was afoot, he believed there was nothing else he could do at that point to further detain Mr. Ross for additional questioning. Therefore, he told Mr. Ross that he was free to go.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.