LA2: Continuation of stop was without RS

The continuation of this stop was without reasonable suspicion. State v. Bell-Brayboy, 2020 La. App. LEXIS 368 (La. App. 2 Cir. Mar. 4, 2020)*:

1. Defendant’s travel itinerary-that he was in Houston training for the [Alabama] football team.

1. Defendant’s assertion that he played football for the University of Alabama. Tpr. Strickland acknowledged that he did find defendant’s name on the team’s roster in a prior year.

3. Third-party owner of the vehicle. Tpr. Strickland testified that there being a third-party owner for vehicle defendant was driving was not suspicious alone, but taken with the other factors it was. Tpr. Strickland acknowledged that he never asked defendant about the owner of the vehicle.

4. Defendant’s statement that he left Tuscaloosa on Friday for Houston, and was returning on Tuesday.

5. Defendant was traveling on I-20, which Tpr. Strickland stated was not the fastest route from Houston to Tuscaloosa.

6. The ALPR system showed the car was on I-10 in Lake Charles the day before defendant was arrested. [Note: somebody else owned the car]

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

Comments are closed.