CA8: When it was immediately apparent that RS for the stop no longer existed, it should have ended

As the officer approached the car stopped for suspicion of shoplifting, it was immediately apparent that the occupants did not match the description of the shoplifters he was looking for. The stop should have ended then. Storrs v. Rozeboom, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313 (8th Cir. July 25, 2024).

Once again, Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims can’t be brought in the Court of Claims. Noll v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18150 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2024).*

“When Hemingson turned on his flashing lights to investigate the window tint, the vehicle was seized and the passengers walking away were subject to the officer’s control …. For the same reasons, we agree that Hemingson had probable cause to stop the vehicle and authority to instruct the passengers to stop fleeing the scene. … He tried to detain them to find out who was the driver. Thus, the court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the seizure.” State v. Worden, 2024 Iowa App. LEXIS 552 (July 24, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.