OH4: Officer saying he had PC to search when he didn’t made search without consent

“We find that the detective did have reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop of Stephenson’s vehicle based on the information provided by an informant. However, the detective lacked probable cause to search the vehicle and the purported ‘consent’ that Stephenson provided came only after the detective told him that he had probable cause to search the vehicle and was going to search it. Stephenson did not ‘consent’ but rather acquiesced to a false claim of lawful authority. There is no consent under such circumstances.” State v. Stephenson, 2024-Ohio-624, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 608 (4th Dist. Feb. 13, 2024).

“Further, the constitutionality of the stop does not depend on whether the driver did, in fact, commit a traffic violation. The standard is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. If an officer reasonably thinks he saw a driver commit a traffic infraction, then that is enough to pull him over.” United States v. Ramdial, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27950 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 16, 2024).*

Defendant was detained during execution of a search warrant but he was not under formal arrest. He was not in custody, and his statements were voluntary. United States v. Ismail, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28921 (D. Minn. Feb. 20, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.