{"id":2954,"date":"2009-06-08T07:19:58","date_gmt":"2009-02-20T08:02:49","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-02-20T08:02:49","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2954","title":{"rendered":"LA1: Being confronted on street by uniform officers saying they were checking warrants was a seizure"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was seized when he was confronted by SWAT officers on a street sweep who asked him for ID and told him they were checking wants and warrants. State v. Bozeman<\/a>, 6 So. 3d 899 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009):<\/p>\n

Based on the foregoing, we find the defendant was seized pursuant to an investigatory stop. The officers involved in the stop were not on routine patrol; rather, they were part of the Sheriff’s Office SWAT team conducting “street sweeps” and, based on narcotics complaints, specifically targeting the high-drug area where the defendant was spotted. The defendant was approached by five officers. Four of the officers spread out around the defendant, while another officer positioned himself on the other side of the vehicle behind the defendant. Lieutenant Brown testified at the motion to suppress hearing that, after the defendant first refused to produce his identification, “[w]e advised him that we needed identification to check and make sure he wasn’t wanted or a wanted person or anything like that.” We find that under these circumstances a reasonable person would not have felt free to disregard the encounter and walk away.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

UPS Inspectors had probable cause to search defendant\u2019s backpack for stolen mail when they finally caught up to her while watching her after she was suspected of stealing mail out of mailboxes. United States v. Walker, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11415 (D. Ariz. January 30, 2009).*<\/p>\n

Probation officers had reason to conduct a probation search of defendant’s apartment based on dirty UAs and another PO having seen drug paraphernalia in defendant’s house. State v. Moore<\/a>, 112 Conn. App. 569, 963 A.2d 1019 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Reasonable suspicion was lacking for defendant’s stop. He was seen in a high crime area. The next day he saw the police and fled. That’s it. Thames v. State<\/a>, 2 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. App. 3DCA 2009).*<\/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-2954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2954","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=2954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}