TX: Refusal to consent can’t be part of RS

“The court of appeals should not have considered Appellant’s lawful refusal to consent to the search of his truck when determining if the facts of this case gave rise to reasonable suspicion. Instead, the court of appeals should have considered the facts outside of Appellant’s refusal to determine if those facts gave rise to reasonable suspicion, just as we did in Wade. Wade, 422 S.W.3d at 675. Because the court of appeals considered Appellant’s lawful refusal to consent as a factor in its reasonable suspicion analysis, we need not reach Appellant’s second ground for review. Instead, we vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case so that the court of appeals may have an opportunity to conduct a reasonable suspicion analysis without considering Appellant’s refusal to consent.” Lall v. State, 2024 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 230 (Mar. 27, 2024).

Defendant contended the officer slow walked the stop, taking seven minutes to get to entering information into the computer. Nevertheless, there was reasonable suspicion for continuing the stop. State v. Thompson, 2024 Iowa App. LEXIS 226 (Mar. 27, 2024).*

Defendant gets a hearing (nominally a Franks hearing, but it sounds different here) to see whether the state collected DNA that needed to be tested against his. State v. Bailey, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 291 (Mar. 27, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.