CA10: Inconsistency in travel plans isn’t RS per se; officer has to see that they’re lying

Inconsistency in travel plans alone isn’t reasonable suspicion to extend a vehicle stop. The officer has to conclude that one of the occupants was lying about plans. “A trooper can reasonably suspect criminal activity when a driver and passenger lie about their travel plans. … But arguable inconsistencies may sometimes be innocent: A person might mishear a trooper’s question, might think the travel plans are none of the trooper’s business, might misremember details of a trip, or might be confused. See United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120, 1131-32 (10th Cir. 2005) (discussing innocent explanations for inconsistencies in travel plans). When an inconsistency indisputably shows that the driver or passenger is lying, a trooper’s suspicion may be reasonable. United States v. Wallace, 429 F.3d 969, 976 (10th Cir. 2005).” United States v. Robbins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3621 (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 2026).

A revocation petition’s affirmation of the truth of what was pled satisfied the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Jimenez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22486 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2026).*

Defendant’s post-conviction petition over his alleged illegal search was years out of time. State v. Davis, 2026 Del. Super. LEXIS 54 (Feb. 1, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.