CA6: 911 calls about dangerous situation satisfied Navarette

The information from 911 callers was detailed and explained a dangerous situation, and reasonable suspicion existed under Navarette. United States v. Duplessis, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 27980 (6th Cir. Oct. 19, 2023).*

“Here, Jordan asked whether Hammond would mind if ‘“we look”’ in her vehicle, and she responded, ‘“If you absolutely need to ….’” He then asked a second time to ‘“take a look,”’ to which Hammond responded, ‘“If you really need to go look, more power to you.”’ The record shows that while the officers prepared to search her vehicle, Hammond asked if they would retrieve her cigarettes from the vehicle, and Jordan responded, ‘“Absolutely.”’ Hammond then ‘stood by the vehicle and made a call on her cell phone.’” The video also showed her hand gesturing toward the vehicle. She didn’t manifest any refusal and then talked on her cell phone. State v. Hammond, 315 Neb. 362 (Oct. 20, 2023).*

This is the fifth 2254 petition. Petitioner’s attempted actual innocence claim doesn’t enable his Fourth Amendment claim to proceed either because it’s a barred successor petition. [Aside from Stone v. Powell.] Brown v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189367 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2023).*

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

Comments are closed.