M.D.Fla.: Coming out of a house under surveillance was not RS; officers had utterly no facts of wrongdoing by anybody

Defendants came out of a house under surveillance for suspected drug activity overnight, but the officers had no PC as to the house. The mere fact of coming out of the house in the early morning hours is not reasonable suspicion of anything. They lacked any facts of a suspected crime. United States v. Traviesa, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41595 (N.D. Fla. May 6, 2009):

Because the officers suspected criminal activity was being conducted inside of the 6550 residence, they decided to conduct surveillance on the location. However, the mere fact that the occupants of the car emerged from a house which was suspected of being involved in narcotics activity is insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion that criminal activity involving these particular Defendants was afoot. …

There is a dearth of evidence to support reasonable suspicion that criminal activity involving these Defendants or this truck was underway. There was no search warrant issued for the 6550 residence or property. There was no evidence that contraband had been moved from the house to the truck. In fact, officers testified that as they drove by the truck, there was nothing inside the truck bed. This was not a high crime area. The time that the Defendants were spotted leaving the house was not in the middle of the night or in the very early morning hours when people engaged in criminal activity may try to conceal their actions. There is no evidence that the windows of the truck were tinted or that the drivers tried in any way to avoid detection. There is no evidence that the Defendants saw the officers from the inside of the house and left in order to evade capture. No informant contacted police and told them that criminal activity was taking place in the 6550 residence. No informants had identified these Defendants as people involved in criminal activity. The connection between the occupants of the 6550 and the occupants of the other marijuana grow operations was tenuous, at best. Officers’ testimony indicated that but for the decision by the Marion County officers to take down another house in the investigation, the officers would not have stopped the Defendants in the truck.

On similar facts to the above, officers tailed the car and made a traffic stop and then lawfully fished around for consent. State v. Corley, 383 S.C. 232, 679 S.E.2d 187 (2009).*

Officers listened to defendants in a hotel room by putting their ear to the common door between them, but that was not unreasonable, and defendant lacked standing to contest the entry since he was there for drug dealing as a temporary guest. The co-defendant argued that the warrantless entry into his hotel room was unreasonable, but the court finds that it does not have to decide that question because there was a search warrant with an independent source. United States v. Hearn, 563 F.3d 95 (5th Cir. 2009).*

Plaintiff, a female truck driver, was arrested for disorderly conduct for giving the finger to a truck stop security guard after he accused her of being a prostitute. She was pulled out of her truck and left standing in the parking lot wearing only panties for 20 minutes, and she was driven to jail without any other clothes. While there was at least PC for the arrest, she stated a claim for the actions of making her stand in the parking lot and taking her to jail undressed. Green v. City of Texarkana, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41979 (W.D. Ark. May 14, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.