Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his driveway from police observation, and it doesn\u2019t qualify as curtilage. When he fled from there, they followed. The driveway area was generally accessible to visitors. United States v. Stitt, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182275 (E.D. Tenn. July 15, 2013),* adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113 (E.D. Tenn., Jan. 2, 2014).*<\/p>\n
All this is reasonable suspicion: \u201cvehicle’s condition, the bill of sale, the registration of the vehicle just before leaving on a trip, and the long-distance, short-duration nature of the trip were all indicators of possible criminal activity.\u201d As to the long distance, the officer searched Google for directions on the route defendant was traveling on his cell phone. Through all this, the officer didn\u2019t unreasonably extend the stop. Klomliam v. State<\/a>, 2014 WY 1, 315 P.3d 665 (2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading