The officer doesn\u2019t have a constitutional obligation to tell (“articulate”) the suspect the reasonable suspicion that forms the basis of the stop. \u201cCf. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 155 (2004) (\u2018While it is assuredly good police practice to inform a person of the reason for his arrest at the time he is taken into custody, we have never held that to be constitutionally required.\u2019).\u201d United States v. Williams, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159028 (D.Me. Nov. 15, 2016).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s guilty plea didn\u2019t preserve his search issue, so it\u2019s waived. State v. Wooddell<\/a>, 2016-Ohio-7752, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 4618 (5th Dist. Nov. 9, 2016).*<\/p>\n The traffic stop transformed into a mere encounter, and defendant\u2019s consent was voluntary. That led to finding a box welded under the vehicle full of cocaine. Commonwealth v. Randolph<\/a>, 2016 PA Super 253, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 671 (Nov. 16, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The officer doesn\u2019t have a constitutional obligation to tell (“articulate”) the suspect the reasonable suspicion that forms the basis of the stop. \u201cCf. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 155 (2004) (\u2018While it is assuredly good police practice to inform … Continue reading