The citizen informant\u2019s tip defendant was the person wanted in a carjacking was alone not enough to make a stop, but here it was corroborated by significant details. \u201cAccordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court concludes that the tip provided by the concerned citizen, evidence by and together with the \u2018corroboration of certain details,\u2019 provided reasonable suspicion to support the Terry stop of Defendant.\u201d United States v. Archibald, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72451 (D.V.I. June 3, 2016).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s patdown was not by consent because he was ordered out of the car for it, but the court finds that it was based on reasonable suspicion of the smell of marijuana coming from the car. United States v. Saul, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72866 (E.D.Va. June 3, 2016).*<\/p>\n
The suppression hearing testimony was about how long it would take to get a search warrant for defendant\u2019s blood, and the trial court found the three hour testimony speculation and suppressed the warrantless blood search. That was supported by the evidence, and it\u2019s affirmed. State v. Hermanson<\/a>, 278 Ore. App. 570, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 649 (June 2, 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The citizen informant\u2019s tip defendant was the person wanted in a carjacking was alone not enough to make a stop, but here it was corroborated by significant details. \u201cAccordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court … Continue reading