Delaying transmitting information for a license check for ten minutes and then engaging in relentless repetitive questions made the stop unreasonable. United States v. Christy, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21885 (D. Neb. March 19, 2008):<\/p>\n
The evidence shows that Deputy Wintle first inordinately delayed commencing the “routine” tasks related to the stop. He waited more than ten minutes before transmitting license and registration information to the dispatcher, questioning the occupants in the meantime. Twelve minutes into the stop, Deputy Wintle had ascertained that the travelers’ documents were in order and they had no arrests or outstanding warrants. By that time, he had decided to issue the driver a warning ticket. In the context of the extensive questioning of the occupants that had already occurred, it is doubtful that a reasonable person in Davis’s position would have felt free to leave or to decline the officer’s request to answer a few more questions. Davis’s consent to further questioning cannot be considered voluntary. Davis was not told he was free to leave or free to decline to answer Deputy Wintle’s questions. Most importantly, he was left in the cruiser while Deputy Wintle went to talk to the passenger. He was then questioned by another officer who told him it would not take much longer, implying that Davis was not free to end the encounter at that point.<\/p>\n
Deputy Wintle testified that Christy and Davis gave consistent answers to his queries. The relentless and repetitive nature of the questioning shows that it is more in the nature of a custodial interrogation than a consensual conversation between a citizen and a law enforcement officer. Despite being given consistent answers and reasonable explanations, Deputy Wintle continued to question Davis and Christy in an apparent attempt to trip them up or poke holes in their stories. The court does not agree with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Davis was no longer “seized” after he was issued the warning ticket. At some point after the warning ticket was issued, the encounter regained its investigatory nature, at the latest when Deputy Wintle asked Davis to return the vehicle’s registration.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Based on information from a guy rolling over on the defendants, the DEA had probable cause to stop their car. United States v. Fiasche<\/a>, 520 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2008).*<\/p>\n
The use of two civilians in a child support warrant roundup did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of anybody arrested. Mason v. Barbieri, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21630 (D. Conn. March 20, 2008).<\/p>\n
Officers had reasonable suspicion as to the defendant, and, when he fled, officers tackled him, finding a gun. The gun was lawfully found. United States v. Vazquez, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21906 (E.D. Pa. March 20, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading