N.D.Ind.: Having def sit in the patrol car didn’t prolong the stop

“[T]he officer did not commit an unlawful seizure when he instructed Salazar-Lopez to sit in the patrol car. The move to the patrol car did not impermissibly prolong the traffic stop, and was incidental to the mission of the stop.” Questions about his trip didn’t unreasonably prolong the stop. “Moreover, Salazar-Lopez’s answers warranted the officer’s brief follow-up questions when Salazar-Lopez could not readily identify where he was driving from and could not produce the rental agreement for the car he was driving.” United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51516 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2020).

The plaintiff prisoner stated a claim for arbitrary or retaliatory strip searches after medical visits that didn’t compare to other reasons. Khan v. Barela, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9438 (10th Cir. Mar. 26, 2020).

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

Comments are closed.