VT: Where no testimony supports the trial court’s finding of fact, the finding is clearly erroneous

“One of the findings could be based only on testimony from the officer: ‘Although [defendant's girlfriend] had not expressly stated that [the officer] could come into the house, he interpreted her action as inviting him in.’ There is no testimony from either witness that supports the last phrase of this finding — that the officer interpreted the girlfriend’s action as an invitation to enter. The finding is clearly erroneous.” State v. Allis, 2017 VT 96, 2017 Vt. LEXIS 118 (Oct. 13, 2017).

Defendant’s stop was based on reasonable suspicion, and defendant’s argument seeks to impose a definition of reasonable suspicion that’s not the law in the Eighth Circuit. United States v. Schwarting, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170633 (D. S.D. Oct. 16, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.