D.Utah: Two guys leaning in a car window talking was alone not RS

Two guys standing at a car talking to the occupants was not reasonable suspicion. “The fact that Mr. Dell and his companion were standing on either side of the parked car, looking into the windows in a back-and-forth manner is not enough to give Officer Tafisi reasonable suspicion that they were engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Dell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27426 (D. Utah March 15, 2011).*

A knock-and-talk led to officers gaining access to a locked basement to the house where a grow operation was found. This was all by consent. United States v. Greene, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27219 (E.D. Tenn. February 16, 2011).*

Defendant was validly in custody in the back of a police car, and the officer went back to talk to him. “The Court finds that the statement, ‘What you’re looking for is lying on the front seat of the vehicle,’ to be effective consent to search the vehicle. ‘The standard for measuring the scope of the suspect’s consent is objective reasonableness. Recitation of magic words is unnecessary; the key inquiry focuses on what the typical person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect.’ United States v. Stewart, 93 F.3d 189, 192 (5th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted).” United States v. Olivarria, 781 F. Supp. 2d 387 (N.D. Miss. 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.