Hot pursuit of a man with a gun that the police believed he would use was sufficient exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry. United States v. Ponder, 240 Fed. Appx. 17, 2007 FED App. 0428N (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n
Defendant’s stop was justified by his weaving and repeatedly hitting his brakes. When stopped, his eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred. The officer asked for and received consent. Defendant was a felon in possession of ammunition. Such questioning during a stop is not unreasonable. United States v. Mesa, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15036 (9th Cir. June 19, 2007)* (unpublished):<\/p>\n
Mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure unless it prolongs the detention of the individual, and, thus, no reasonable suspicion is required to justify questioning that does not prolong the stop. Muehler v. Mena,<\/em> 544 U.S. 93, 101 (2005) (citing Illinois v. Caballes,<\/em> 543 U.S. 405, 408 (2005)). The rule applies to questioning during traffic stops, as well as in other contexts. United States v. Mendez,<\/em> 476 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit in Mendez<\/em> determined that police questioning did not prolong a traffic stop where the entire encounter lasted approximately eight minutes, during which the police ran a records check and searched the vehicle. Id.<\/em> at 1080-81.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Stop that lasted 21 minutes including the request for consent after the paperwork was returned was not unreasonable. It became a consensual encounter because it was not coercive. United States v. Rochin-German, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45335 (D. Kan. June 21, 2007):<\/p>\n
Sonja was advised that Cocking had nothing more for her and was told to have a good evening. Only then was Sonja asked if Cocking could have permission to search her vehicle. There is no indication that Cocking made any “coercive show of authority” such that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave. See United States v. Turner,<\/em> 928 F.2d 956, 959 (10th Cir. 1991) (discussing factors for finding a “coercive show of authority, such as the presence of more than one officer, the display of a weapon, physical touching by the officer, or his use of a commanding tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled”). The court therefore finds that the traffic stop had become a consensual encounter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(Comment:<\/em> Again, the fiction of lack of show of authority.)<\/p>\n
Officer had reasonable suspicion for patdown after stop based on several factors, including the fact that the defendant had left a known drug house, it was 2 a.m., defendant’s nervousness and furtive movement, evasive answers about age, and a dispatch that the person stopped was a missing person. United States v. Collins, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45320 (D. Utah June 21, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading