Defendant consented to a patdown which produced a small hard object that resulted in his handcuffing. It was a diamond, and the handcuffing stopped, but the stop didn’t. “We agree with defendant that, once police realized the object was a diamond, they lacked probable cause to keep him under arrest for drug possession. The only other basis for the arrest—a vague and uncorroborated claim by an informant—did not constitute probable cause.” Thus, the request for consent came during an unlawful arrest, and the consent was invalid. People v. Espino, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 415 (6th Dist. May 24, 2016):
Continue reading →

After a valid traffic stop, officers had reasonable suspicion to search a bag for weapons based on an admission by one occupant there were drugs in the car, an outstanding felony warrant on the driver, and two knives (one illegal and the other lied about). United States v. Wilson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65963 (D.Ore. May 18, 2016).

Defendant’s motion for new trial included the previously denied motions to suppress which are not found justification for granting the motion. United States v. Fifer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65590 (C.D.Ill. May 18, 2016);* United States v. Melero, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65839 (N.D.Ill. May 19, 2016).*

After a robbery report, the two apparent suspects had been arrested. Yet, the investigation continued and stopped defendant in the vicinity, and the inferences used to justify it aren’t even reasonable. “Even crediting Deputy Niles’s testimony that store robberies typically involve a getaway driver (and there is no reason not to), the officers still did not have sufficient articulable facts that would support a reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Street, in particular, was the missing cohort. Indeed, this suspicion could have been reasonable under only two scenarios: (1) Mr. Street was the getaway driver, or (2) Mr. Street was one of the two men who entered the Verizon store. Based on the facts known to law enforcement at the time of the stop, neither inference would have been reasonable.” “Aside from being one of the only black males in the crowd, Mr. Street stood out, according to Deputy Niles, because he walked straight ahead, held a cell phone to his ear, and did not make eye contact with anyone else. These facts, however, do not add anything to the reasonable suspicion analysis.” United States v. Keycie, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64229 (E.D.Wis. Mar. 28, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64222 (E.D. Wis. May 16, 2016).*