CA3: “Rodriguez moment” here was 13 minutes into the stop and with RS

“We agree with the District Court that everything that occurred before the Rodriguez moment was within the scope of a normal traffic stop, and after that point, was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Cpl. Conrad’s initial questioning of Ms. Stanger qualified as an ‘ordinary inquir[y]’ related to the stop. … It was not until after their conversation-approximately thirteen and a half minutes into the stop-that the stop was arguably extended. [¶] But by that point, Cpl. Conrad had already observed sufficient indicia that the Stangers could be involved in drug trafficking. We determine the existence of reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances.” United States v. Stanger, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2642 (3d Cir. Feb. 5, 2025).*

“Thus, viewed as a whole, the affidavit raised a ‘fair probability’ that 4130 Lilac Avenue would contain evidence of Whited’s suspected crimes. See Sanders, 106 F.4th at 462. [¶] Whited points to several supposed deficiencies in the affidavit, but none defeat probable cause.” United States v. Whited, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2774 (6th Cir. Feb. 5, 2025).*

Defendant’s arrest was valid with probable cause. “Defendant has not established that the arresting officers’ reliance on the DOC warrant was not objectively reasonable, even after Blake” held the prior offense might be invalid. United States v. Balles, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20780 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 5, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.