S.D.Ohio: RS was based in part on information from a “ping order” on defendant’s cell phone, for which the justification goes unexplained

Part of the reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop was a “ping order” on his cell phone to keep tabs on him, conversations on a phone with snitch working for the police, and confirmation of where he was after they went to the locations provided from the pings. “Specifically, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that Ayers and Showes had driven to Detroit to pick up heroin and that, at the time of the Terry stop, they were in the process of transporting said heroin back to Cincinnati for further distribution.” United States v. Ayers, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123532 (S.D. Ohio October 25, 2011).* (There is no discussion of the validity or scope or issuance of the ping order. Under Jones (see ScotusBlog) this is a huge lurking issue: Can the government follow people through their cell phones already GPS enabled and not have to install a GPS on a car?)

Defendant was stopped and his passenger fled. Defendant was compliant and removed his hands from his pocket when instructed. There was no reasonable suspicion he was armed to justify a pat down, and any suspicion as to the passenger did not relate to him. Hill v. State, 956 N.E.2d 174 (Ind. App. 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.