The officer, in effect, told defendant she was free to leave, but he kept talking. “Second, VanWinkle did not require compliance with her request. VanWinkle asked, ‘[H]ey, before you go, do you have a minute to talk to me?’ The question was casual, not authoritative. The question did not demand compliance; it simply asked for a willingness to consent.” Her sticking around was consensual. Because consent applies, the attenuation doctrine doesn’t. State v. Hartsell, 304 Neb. 82 (Sept. 20, 2019).

“Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the detention was independently supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion to await the drug-sniffing dog. Johnson had just left a house that the police were securing a warrant to search because it had been the site of drug trafficking earlier that afternoon. Johnson, who had a key to the front door, had just accessed the home. When questioned by Mack, Johnson did not disclose that he had just come from the Freeman home and provided several different answers to Mack’s questions. … Finally, Johnson had a large amount of cash in his pocket. These additional specific and articulable facts provided the officer with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify detaining Johnson beyond the initial traffic violation.” State v. Johnson, 2019-Ohio-3877, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 3939 (1st Dist. Sept. 25, 2019).*