Cal.4: Anticipating that def would drive without headlights isn’t RS for a stop

Defendant was stopped for being parked with only foglights on, the officer thinking that he was about to drive without headlights on, but the stop wasn’t justified. (A kind of anticipatory reasonable suspicion.) People v. Kidd, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 527 (4th Dist. May 16, 2019), published June 10, 2019.*

The government articulated several possible factors for reasonable suspicion for extending the stop which the court rejects on the totality. “Short declined to articulate any basis for awaiting the dog sniff when Near specifically asked him ‘May I ask what I’ve done wrong, sir?’ (Video at 18:36). Instead, Short answered, ‘Um I’ll tell you as soon as we’re done.’ (Id. at 18:38). He subsequently prepared a written report that referenced only rapid breathing and a pulsing carotid artery as suspicious factors.” United States v. Near, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97681 (N.D. Okla. June 11, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.