After traffic stop was over and officer heard car shift into gear, he walked back to the car to ask more questions, and the driver said “We’re done.” Officer then told him to put the car in park. That was another seizure. And, with apologies to the experience of the officer, it was without reasonable suspicion. United States v. Diaz, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59708 (D. Kan. August 5, 2008):<\/p>\n
After the purpose of the traffic stop is complete, however, “further detention for purposes of questioning unrelated to the initial stop” is generally impermissible. Bradford<\/em>, 423 F.3d at 1156-57. In general, “lengthening the detention for further questioning beyond that related to the initial stop is permissible in two circumstances. First, the officer may detain the driver for questioning unrelated to the initial stop if he has an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion illegal activity has occurred or is occurring. Second, further questioning unrelated to the initial stop is permissible if the initial detention has become a consensual encounter.” Hunnicutt<\/em>, 135 F.3d at 1349.<\/p>\n
In this case, Duffey’s further questioning of Diaz was not consensual. Diaz had placed the car in gear to drive away when Duffey asked him if he could ask more questions. Diaz did not agree to further questioning and was ordered to put the car in park and surrender the keys. A reasonable person in Diaz’ position would not have felt free to leave. Indeed, he couldn’t leave. Therefore, Diaz’ conduct cannot be considered consensual. Id<\/em>. at 1310. Thus, the validity of the search and subsequent seizure of the methamphetamine turns on the existence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion of illegal activity.<\/p>\n
. . .<\/p>\n
Based on many cases such as this one, the court knows that experienced, well-trained officers such as Trooper Duffey have the ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious circumstances. The court is always reluctant to make a ruling which seems to be second-guessing an officer who was on the scene. Nevertheless, this is one of those relatively rare cases where the totality of the circumstances does not give rise to reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, defendants’ joint motion to suppress is granted. (Doc. 28). Defendants’ joint motion to suppress the cell phone searches (Docs. 29 and 30) is moot.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In n. 1, the court also said this about “source cities”: “While this is undoubtedly true, its relevance is becoming shopworn because, based on the testimony in dozens of similar motions, virtually every large city in every state has become a ‘known drug source.'”<\/p>\n
Comment:<\/em> This is proof positive, at least to me, that the “Columbo gambit” of “just a few more questions” is intended by the police to be a further stop. Here, the defendant didn’t fall for it, and then the officer told him to put the car in park, effectively seizing him again.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading