CA8: No need to prove exigency under 4A for automobile exception

No matter what state cases under state law may say, there’s no need to prove exigency in an automobile exception case under the Fourth Amendment, even when the car is temporarily immobilized. United States v. Johnson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14984 (8th Cir. June 16, 2023).

“The record shows that, after communicating with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the police officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect Chairez was part of a drug trafficking scheme. In light of the officer’s reasonable suspicion that Chairez was involved in criminal activity, he fails to demonstrate that the officer unduly prolonged his traffic stop. … Likewise, the officer’s request for consent was reasonably related to dispelling reasonable suspicion developed before or during the stop, and there was no Fourth Amendment violation that tainted the consent to search the vehicle.” United States v. Chairez, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14920 (5th Cir. June 15, 2023).*

Stone v. Powell: “The issue before this Court is whether Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity in the state courts to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim, not whether Petitioner actually litigated those claims, nor whether the state courts correctly disposed of the Fourth Amendment issues tendered to them.” Haven v. Cueva, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104354 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.