UT: Officer who learns mistake for stop before contacting motorist may still talk to the motorist, and RS can develop from that

The defendant was stopped for not having a license plate, but, after the stop, the officer saw a valid temporary tag. The officer was entitled to approach the motorist to explain the mistake. On discovering the smell of alcohol, further inquiry was justified. State v. Morris, 2011 UT 40, 687 Utah Adv. Rep. 43, 259 P.3d 116 (2011):

[*P1] This appeal concerns the constitutionality of a police officer’s actions during a traffic stop. Specifically, we consider what an officer must do when he stops a driver based on an objectively reasonable belief that a traffic violation has occurred, but before approaching the driver the officer learns he was mistaken about the grounds for the stop. We hold that when an officer acting in good faith is reasonably mistaken about the grounds for a traffic stop, he may initiate contact with the driver to explain his mistake and to end the stop, but may not detain the driver any further. If during this brief encounter new reasonable suspicion of criminal activity arises, the officer may respond accordingly.

The officer saw multiple hand-to-hand transactions, and that justified the stop of the defendant for drug dealing. State v. Hankerson, 65 So. 3d 502, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S 182 (2011), Released for Publication June 30, 2011.

Defendant’s traffic stop was justified, and the officer saw a “tool-knife” (Swiss Army type) in his lap, and he was told to keep his hands visible, but he would not comply. This justified getting him out of the car for a patdown, which validly produced drugs. Cortes v. State,260 P.3d 184, 127 Nev. Adv. Rep. 44 (2011).*

In a 100+ page death penalty IAC opinion, the court concludes as to the 1990 search issue, it was not appealed, but, had it been, it would have been affirmed anyway because the parties agree that there was probable cause to search defendant’s car. The only issue was exigency, which isn’t really much of an issue anyway because: car on street = exigency. Bane v. State, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 574 (July 21, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.