“The undersigned finds that the instant case is more akin to Navarette, than J.L. Although the tipster in the instant case was completely anonymous, there was sufficient indicia of reliability, based on the totality of the circumstances, to support Officer Trujillo’s reasonable suspicion that ‘criminal activity [was] afoot.’ Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123. [¶] The threat and brandishing of the firearm occurred in a high-crime area. The Northside District has a shot spotter system in place and shootings are a common occurrence there. The area is more dangerous at night and Officer Trujillo testified that police have responded to other violent incidents at that particular U-Save supermarket.” It was also in a high crime area. United States v. Danbreville, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25627 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2020).
The driver’s consent to search his car doesn’t apply to the passenger’s purse left inside. A drug dog alert, however, permitted a search of the car and the purse under the automobile exception. State v. Raslovsky, 2020-Ohio-515, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 481 (2d Dist. Feb. 15, 2020).*