KS: One officer said defendant could go but another pressed for a search; the defendant would not feel free to leave

With two officers involved in the stop, one said defendant could leave, but the other said three times that he wanted permission to search the car. Defendant was not free to go. State v. Hogan, 252 P.3d 627 (Kan. App. 2011).*

A call from a store loss prevention officer that defendant bought Sudafed and Coleman fuel at the same time was reasonable suspicion for a stop of defendant’s car for possession of precursors for making methamphetamine. People v. Steele, 292 Mich. App. 308, 806 N.W.2d 753 (2011), leave to appeal denied by, 801 N.W.2d 882 (2011).*

While defendant did not show that he had standing in the vehicle that was not his by showing that he had permission to operate it, there was reasonable suspicion for the stop for smuggling. United States v. Varela, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40818 (D. Ariz. April 7, 2011).*

Defendant was stopped for following too close and then a rolling stop. He argued that the video supported his position, but, instead, it supported the officer’s actions. United States v. Huff, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142659 (E.D. Tenn. December 6, 2010).*