NM: Stop for mere curiosity to run name was unreasonable stop under Strieff

Stopping defendant for mere curiosity to get his name and then run warrants was an unreasonable stop. When a warrant came up, it wasn’t attenuated under Strieff. “Here, Officer Hernandez testified that it was his practice when working the night shift, regardless of whether a crime had been reported or not, to stop anyone he did not know and ask for their name and date of birth. He explained that his reason for doing this was to establish a database of people walking around Silver City at night, so that if a crime was committed later in the night, he could review the names of the people with whom he had had contact. This was a standard practice of the Silver City Police Department.” State v. Ramey, 2020 N.M. App. LEXIS 31 (June 29, 2020).

“[T]o the extent Stockley argues that the allegations of the misrepresentation and omissions in the probable cause affidavit support a claim that Deeken violated Stockley’s substantive due process rights solely because the judge would not have found there was probable cause to issue the arrest warrant if the affidavit had included complete and accurate information, this argument is foreclosed by Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911, 197 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2017).” In addition, there was probable cause for the prosecution, so his malicious prosecution claim fails. Stockley v. Joyce, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 20117 (8th Cir. June 29, 2020).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Attenuation, Probable cause, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.