Stopping a car because a relative of the wanted defendant owned it and it had been seen at defendant’s house wasn’t reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Carr, 2017 Kan. App. LEXIS 78 (Oct. 27, 2017):
In our case, based on the officers’ testimony, they stopped the Explorer because one of them associated it with Carr. The officer’s association was based on (1) knowledge that a relative of Carr owned a black Explorer and (2) having seen the vehicle at Carr’s house. Those facts aren’t sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion that Carr was in the vehicle when it was stopped. In sum, the officers had a hunch or hope that Carr was in his relative’s vehicle but no facts or knowledge to support that hunch or hope. See Hudson, 405 F.3d at 438. Because the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that Carr was in the Explorer, they had no legal cause to stop the vehicle.