CA8: Arrest for expressive speech without PC was a Fourth and First Amendment violation

Plaintiffs’ arrest for a passive protest of “consumerism” was without probable cause. They were engaged in expressive speech, not disorderly conduct or even fighting words. Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 2010).*

Two Hispanic women driving together on I-5 in California who stopped and switched cars was not reasonable suspicion. United States v. Vasquez, 367 Fed. Appx. 799 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished)*:

Here, the finding of reasonable suspicion rested on the fact that two Hispanic women in southern California switched cars twice and ultimately headed north on I-5. The exchanges between the cars took place in broad daylight. The government offered no facts suggesting, for example, that the officers found the types of vehicles suspicious or that the drivers or passengers acted in any evasive or unusual manner, or that the cul-de-sac particularly was known to house alien smugglers. While transferring between cars may be odd, it does not give rise to “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18.

Having failed to set forth sufficient facts to support a finding of reasonable suspicion, the government suggested at oral argument that we remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Not only did the district court find an evidentiary hearing unnecessary because no facts were in dispute, see United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir. 2000), but the government opposed the request for a hearing. Thus, no hearing is warranted now.

Defendant was stopped because there was a commercial vehicle tag on a passenger vehicle that was not on file. The officers observed several things, which in his experience, were indications of a hidden compartment. United States v. Beltran-Diaz, 366 Fed. Appx. 950 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.