MO: When records check came back clean, officer could not ask for consent without first telling defendant he could leave

When defendant’s records check came back clean, defendant should have been permitted to leave, and asking about drugs made the stop unreasonable. State v. Vogler, 297 S.W.3d 116 (Mo. App. 2009)*:

Defendant argues that, considering the totality of the circumstances, Loughridge’s conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he or she was not free to decline the officer’s requests or terminate the encounter. This Court agrees. In the usual traffic stop, the issuance of the citation or warning at the conclusion of the encounter helps indicate to the driver that he or she may leave. Here, however, Defendant was told at the outset of the traffic stop that he was only being given a warning. Nevertheless, he was detained by Loughridge for a record check. Defendant was instructed to return to his car and remain there, which he did. While Loughridge received the results of his radio check, he never conveyed that information to Defendant or told him he was free to go. When Loughridge returned to the Cadillac, he stood to the side of the open window and immediately asked Defendant if he had any illegal drugs or weapons in the car. Despite Defendant’s denial, Loughridge asked to search the vehicle. When Defendant exited the vehicle, Loughridge immediately asked Defendant if he had any weapons on his person. Again, despite Defendant’s denial, Loughridge asked to pat Defendant down. From the stop to arrest, this seven-minute encounter between Loughridge and Defendant was one seamless event. There was nothing to give a reasonable person any clear demarcation between the end of the traffic stop and the purported new, consensual encounter between officer and detainee. Therefore, we hold that the trial court clearly erred in deciding that the evidence collected from Defendant resulted from a consensual search.

The smell of marijuana was PC for a search of defendant’s car, and Gant was inapplicable. State v. Johnlouis, 22 So. 3d 1150 (La. App. 3d Cir. 2009).*

Defendant’s failure to include inventory in his motion to suppress precluded relying on that argument on appeal. State v. Ceaser, 2009 La. App. LEXIS 1863 (La. App. 3d Cir. November 4, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.