TN: Mere called-in description and location of allegedly impaired driver wasn’t enough for stop

A mere description of a truck and its general location, with no details of how the caller knew that the driver was impaired, was insufficient. Even when coupled with the officer’s one-minute interaction with defendant prior to seizing her where the office only saw “watery eyes” and did not suspect she was impaired when he asked for her license there still wasn’t reasonable suspicion. State v. Wascher, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 414 (June 6, 2016).*

Plaintiff didn’t rebut defendants’ showing that the emergency doctrine supported the search, so summary judgment was properly granted. Navicky v. Gevatosky, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10216 (9th Cir. June 6, 2016).*

Defendant’s vehicle was properly searched by inventory because the driver was being taken away, and, alternatively, when asked if there was anything illegal in the car, he said “No, go ahead.” United States v. Scales, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75003 (E.D.Mich. June 9, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Inventory. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.