C.D.Cal.: Running criminal history of passenger unreasonably prolonged the stop

The stop was valid, but the stop was unreasonably prolonged without reasonable suspicion when running the criminal history of the passenger. That was not part of the incidents of the traffic stop. The frisk was also unreasonable. Also, “The Court finds that the existence of tattoos and a red banana on its own do not form a basis for reasonable suspicion of any crime. Accordingly, the further investigation into Rubio was outside the scope of the traffic stop, and it undisputedly added time to the stop. Thus, the Court finds that the stop was unconstitutionally prolonged.” United States v. Rubio, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8247 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2025).

“Here, the credibility determination of the Supreme Court is supported by the record. The description of the events in the warrant application and the consistency of the witness’s testimony at the Darden hearing established the identity of the confidential informant and that the informant gave the police information sufficient to establish probable cause.” People v. Suarez, 2025 NY Slip Op 00239 (2d Dept. Jan. 15, 2025).*

“The court reiterates its prior ruling that Mr. Gumbs’s interactions with W. Taylor independently established probable cause to search Mr. Gumbs’s home and, here, to seize his phones. But even if it did not, there were four additional events (on top of several other details in affidavits submitted in this case) which together establish probable cause.” United States v. Gumbs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7720 (D. Conn. Jan. 15, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Independent source, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.