AK: Officer’s hand gesture created stop

A state trooper’s hand gesture was sufficient to create a stop under the state constitution. Majaev v. State, 223 P.3d 629 (Alas. 2010):

The State’s argument focuses on the wrong question. The relevant inquiry is not whether Majaev would actually have faced criminal prosecution or punishment under AS 28.35.182, but rather whether a reasonable person in Majaev’s position would have believed that he was required to respond to the trooper’s gesture in order to comply with the law. A reasonable person in Majaev’s position would assume that he was not free to leave because ignoring Trooper Bordner’s signal would be a violation of AS 28.35.182(b) and therefore could have subjected such a person to criminal sanction. Statutes like AS 28.35.182 are intended to influence behavior; thus this coercive effect must be considered within our analysis of whether Majaev was seized under the Waring test.

“[T]he Court finds that Listman’s Fourth Amendment challenge fails as a matter of law. Because Listman raises no issues of fact in support of his motion, only conclusory legal objections, an evidentiary hearing is not required. See U.S. v. Losing, 539 F.2d 1174, 1177 (8th Cir. 1976) (‘Evidentiary hearings need not be set as a matter of course, but if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in question, an evidentiary hearing is required.’).” United States v. Listman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5239 (E.D. Ark. January 12, 2010).*

Ross governs the search of defendant’s car because it was with probable cause; it was not a search incident barred by Gant. United States v. Armstrong, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4913 (E.D. Tex. January 11, 2010).*

Partially obscured license plate was probable cause for defendant’s stop. State v. Klinghammer, 2010 Iowa App. LEXIS 42 (January 22, 2010).*

The driver’s consent to search was reasonably interpreted by the officer to include all the bags in the car. The passenger’s bags were thus subject to the consent. State v. Harding, 2010 UT App 8, 223 P.3d 1148, 648 Utah Adv. Rep. 4 (2010).*

Based on video of credit card transactions, the police had reasonable suspicion to stop a car seen in the videos. State v. Figueroa, 2010 Ohio 189, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 164 (9th Dist. January 25, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.