SC: Unzipped pants in traffic stop contributed to RS

“Because we must evaluate the trial court’s findings for clear error, we reluctantly conclude evidence supported the trial court’s finding the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop.” Partly from unzipped pants which suggests to the officer hiding drugs there. There were other observations, too. “Officer Hall stated that based on these observations, his ‘interest was piqued highly that something was amiss.’” State v. Frasier, 2020 S.C. App. LEXIS 75 (July 29, 2020).

“In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, this Court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the claimant. … Defendants’ arguments are better suited for a motion for summary judgment when the record is more fully developed. Accordingly, the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim at this time.” Vuz v. DCSS III, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135312 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.