D.Neb.: Admitted state law jurisdiction violation still not 4A unreasonable

Despite the criminal charges being dropped because city officers were outside their jurisdiction, the whole matter was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because reasonableness doesn’t depend on state law violations. Kosiba v. Kleine, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139379 (D. Neb. Aug. 10, 2023).

“Here, Trooper Powell testified to six factors that contributed to his suspicion before he extended the traffic stop by asking Defendant to exit his vehicle. These factors amounted to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. Accordingly, because Trooper Powell had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before he deviated from the traffic-based mission of the stop, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, and the evidence resulting from the stop will not be suppressed.” Extending the stop 104 minutes for the drug dog was reasonable. United States v. Wilkenson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139141 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2023).*

Defendant wasn’t blocked in and wasn’t seized. He still had the ability to avoid the encounter, which he did by fleeing. United States v. Zamora, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139105 (D. Mont. Aug. 9, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.