{"id":1049,"date":"2008-02-03T13:05:58","date_gmt":"2007-06-09T09:24:53","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-06-09T09:24:53","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1049","title":{"rendered":"Witness credibility is everything: W.D. Mich. finds officer not credible on basis for stop which leads it to conclude he was not credible on the only other justification offered"},"content":{"rendered":"

Because court finds that officer was not credible on whether the license plate was properly illuminated for the basis of the stop, the court also finds the rest of his testimony not credible on the alleged swerving in the lane and suppresses the search. United States v. Walters, 492 F. Supp. 2d 754 (W.D. Mich. 2007).* (Comment:<\/em> This case is interesting because the officer’s strained efforts to manufacture justification for the stop, belied by photographs, tainted all his testimony. Why can’t they just be content with the truth? Apparently they can’t when they make up facts to justify a stop.)<\/p>\n

Government’s certification motion for an interlocutory appeal was not even filed until after the appeal was argued orally and got onto that issue. The government’s failure was not in bad faith, and did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant. On the merits, from all indications (fake ID, on a drug courier route, hands shaking uncontrollably, etc.) the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain briefly for a drug dog. United States v. Newland, 246 Fed. Appx. 180 (4th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n

Stop based on partially obstructed license plate was valid under state law, and reasonable suspicion developed after that. United States v. Fleetwood, 235 Fed. Appx. 892 (3d Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n

During a traffic stop, the officer saw over the defendant’s ear what was obviously a blunt, and that was plain view. United States v. Stanyard, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41564 (M.D. Ala. June 7, 2007).*<\/p>\n

The testimony of the officer was sufficient to show that the roadside questioning of the defendant was not unreasonable. “The facts elicited from Officer Connell, the sole witness at the hearing, fail to show that he extensively questioned or requestioned of Heathman or asked questions unrelated to the purpose for the stop. No evidence supports defendant’s contention that the stop was appreciably lengthened by any questions unrelated to the stop, nor do other facts show that defendant’s detention was unreasonable.” United States v. Johnson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41392 (D. Kan. June 6, 2007):<\/p>\n

This court’s examination is clear.<\/p>\n

“… we need not make a time and motion study of traffic stops; we consider the detention as a whole and the touchstone of our inquiry is reasonableness. …we must consider the individual circumstances that confronted the troopers, using ‘common sense and ordinary human experience’ to determine whether ‘the police acted less than diligently, or … unnecessarily prolonged [the] detention.’ United States v. Sharpe,<\/em> 470 U.S. 675, 685, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 84 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1985).”<\/p>\n

United States v. Patterson,<\/em> 472 F.3d 767, 776 (10th Cir. 2006).<\/p>\n

The Tenth Circuit recently rejected a challenge similar to the one made by this defendant in these words:<\/p>\n

“Even if this task might have been performed slightly faster had [the officer] not been asking questions, the time involved was not ‘beyond the time reasonably required to complete that [task].’ Caballes<\/em>, 125 S. Ct. at 837; see United States v. Martin<\/em>, 422 F.3d 597, 601-02 (7th Cir. 2005) (‘A traffic stop does not become unreasonable merely because the officer asks questions unrelated to the initial purpose for the stop, provided that those questions do not unreasonably extend the amount of time that the subject is delayed.’); United States v. Childs<\/em>, 277 F.3d 947, 949 (7th Cir.2002) (en banc) (‘questions that do not increase the length of detention (or that extend it by only a brief time) do not make the custody itself unreasonable’). Therefore, this questioning was lawful.”<\/p>\n

Alcaraz-Arellano,<\/em> 441 F.3d at 1259.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}