DE: High crime area + messy car ≠ RS

Defendant lived in a “high crime area,” and that did not make his car subject to search just because of alleged tips. “When Officer Millner asked Defendant whether there were guns or drugs in the vehicle, Defendant replied ‘no’ and stated that the vehicle had just been ‘cleaned out.’ Officer Millner testified that, in his subjective opinion, the vehicle was still messy, which created a sufficient suspicion of criminal activity in his mind to justify a search of the vehicle. In my view, there was no reasonable articulable suspicion. If a messy car alone supported a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, countless messy drivers would be at risk of having their vehicles searched.” “Although I give some consideration to the officer’s subjective thoughts, accord weight to his training and experience in detecting criminal activity, and look at the objective facts through the lens of a reasonable, trained police officer, this factor alone is a bridge too far for me. Otherwise, any resident of this neighborhood, driving a car in his or her own neighborhood, would be under suspicion of criminal activity. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Delaware Constitution allows for this chilling result.” Motion to suppress granted. State v. Foreman, 2023 Del. Super. LEXIS 798 (Oct. 4, 2023).

“Here, the district court did not need to explain the suspicionless search condition because such conditions do not implicate the Fourth Amendment, … and the condition’s nexus to the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1) factors is clear from the record.” Defendant has addiction issues. United States v. Tome, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26615 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.