MD: “Detroit Lean” not RS

Defendant was stopped because he was driving with a “Detroit Lean”, but that was indicative of nothing criminal. The stop was without reasonable suspicion. The officer thought it was to divert attention from himself, but it more likely was the opposite. Crosby v. State, 970 A.2d 894 (Md. 2009).

Officers went to defendant’s hotel room to do a knock and talk, and he saw them coming and tried to flush his drugs. The officers entered to get the evidence. They lacked probable cause for the entry. State v. Hoffman, 293 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2009).*

T.L.O. governs searches of cars on school parking lot, following State v. Best, 959 A.2d 243 (N.J. Super. 2008). State v. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85, 319 Wis. 2d 741, 769 N.W.2d 130 (2009).

Evidence supported the trial court’s finding of consent. Floyd v. State, 297 Ga. App. 736, 678 S.E.2d 181 (2009).*

Police received an anonymous call of a weaving car, and the stop was unwarranted because there was not corroboration of the informant. State v. Peele, 2009 N.C. App. LEXIS 507 (May 5, 2009):

Similarly, in this case, the anonymous caller accurately described the car’s physical characteristics and location, but did not give the police any way to test the caller’s credibility. The record contains no information about who the caller was, no details about what the caller had seen, and no information even as to where the caller was located. The caller did not “predict defendant’s specific future action,” Hughes, 353 N.C. at 208, 539 S.E.2d at 631, other than that he was driving from one stoplight to the next. Id. at 210, 539 S.E.2d at 632 (holding that confirmation that defendant was heading in general direction indicated by tipster “is simply not enough detail in an anonymous tip situation”).

Moreover, Sergeant Sullivan “did not seek to establish the reliability of the assertion of illegality.” Id. at 209, 539 S.E.2d at 632. He observed defendant at the stoplight and making the turn. He then followed him for no more than a tenth of a mile. During that time, he saw defendant one time “float[]” over to touch the dotted line and then move over to touch the fog line. The officer agreed that he “never saw any operation at all [of defendant’s vehicle] that was consistent with careless or reckless operation of the vehicle[.]” The officer thus did not corroborate the caller’s assertion of careless and reckless driving. We, therefore, do not believe that this case can be meaningfully distinguished from McArn and, consequently, the anonymous tip lacked sufficient reliability standing alone to provide reasonable suspicion for the stop.