OR: Unspecified and unarticulated “equipment violation” isn’t reasonable suspicion

Officer’s testimony that there was an “equipment violation” as the basis for a stop that led to a drug dog didn’t support reasonable suspicion without articulating the violation. State v. Sexton, 278 Ore. App. 1, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 537 (May 4, 2016).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the drug dog for bad training. The records of training show that the dog was well trained and was certified, so the motion would have failed. Stafford v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61674 (E.D.N.C. May 10, 2016).*

Defendant’s speeding was reasonable suspicion for a stop that revealed he was DUI. State v. Neumann, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 333 (May 4, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.