PA: Defendant’s body language also supported claim of lack of consent

Trial court’s conclusion of lack of consent was based in part on body language on the video of the stop, and it supported the finding. The owner of the car had standing in the trunk of the car, but the passenger did not, as in Rakas. Commonwealth v. Powell, 2010 PA Super 51, 994 A.2d 1096 (2010).

When the car was stopped and the occupant ordered out of the car, the officers saw the stolen property in the back seat in plain view. That gave them reasonable suspicion to question driver and passenger. State v. Zaldivar, 34 So. 3d 76 (Fla. App. 3DCA 2010).*

Defendant stop after seeing something handed over was not probable cause because the officers lacked a reasonable belief that it was a drug transaction. Hankerson v. State, 32 So. 3d 175 (Fla. App. 4DCA 2010)*:

[I]n this case Lucas did not see what defendant exchanged for money. Schmidt did not see what was in his shoe. They did not see him similarly involved in more than one occasion. These patterns on which they rely also occur in innocent public transactions and are not unique to narcotics violations. These patterns may be enough to inform a suspicion for further investigation — perhaps even enough for a Terry stop or a stop under the Florida Stop and Frisk Law.