{"id":1516,"date":"2008-02-17T11:41:55","date_gmt":"2007-11-09T23:39:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-11-09T23:49:13","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1516","title":{"rendered":"Four short “yes” or “no” questions after warning ticket did not unduly extend stop"},"content":{"rendered":"

Four short questions at the conclusion of a traffic stop after issuance of a warning did not unduly extend the stop. People v. Roa<\/a>, 377 Ill. App. 3d 190, 879 N.E.2d 366 (3d Dist. 2007):<\/p>\n

However, the finding of an articulable basis does not end the inquiry. The analysis must proceed to determine if the four questions posed by Sergeant Blanks in this case converted the Terry<\/em> stop into an illegal seizure. The record shows Blanks did not immediately ask for consent to search the vehicle. Rather, he posed several questions, each one serving as a building block for the next, logically progressing so that the last question could be asked in such a manner to make an affirmative answer more likely, if not inevitable. The first three questions the officer posed were short, succinct, and formulated to produce “yes” or “no” responses, which did not unduly delay the fourth and final question regarding consent to search. These brief inquiries are similar to the nature of questions asked by the officer in Terry<\/em> and did not unfairly convert this brief investigative stop into an unconstitutional seizure of defendant or his vehicle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Stop was validly based on a warrant for the passenger, and that led to plain smell of marijuana which justified a search of the car, which was consented to. Somesso v. State, 288 Ga. App. 291, 653 S.E.2d 855 (2007).*<\/p>\n

Defendant failed to object to admission of evidence seized from his pocket at trial, so suppression was waived. Considering it on the merits, however, the defendant’s arrest for trespassing was not unlawful and it was based on probable cause, so the search incident to that arrest was valid. State v. Johnson<\/a>, 237 S.W.3d 277 (Mo. App. 2007).*<\/p>\n

Officer stopped vehicle for speeding that he knew had been stolen. That gave probable cause to search the occupants because it was reasonable to assume they were on a joint venture with the stolen car, per Pringle<\/em><\/a>. Hatcher v. State<\/a>, 177 Md. App. 359, 935 A.2d 468 (2007).*<\/p>\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-1516","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1516","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=1516"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1516\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1516"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1516"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1516"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}