Defendant \u201cargues LPD acted on that hunch when deciding the white Ford Explorer was involved in the February bank robbery, and there was no proof beyond a speculative hunch that the February suspect and the April suspect were the same person.\u201d The court disagrees because the totality of facts is more than a hunch and it adds up to reasonable suspicion. United States v. McCain, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186430 (D. Neb. Sept. 18, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181025 (D. Neb. Nov. 1, 2017).*<\/p>\n
Illogical account of missing exit to girlfriend\u2019s house three exits back, possession of $372, mutually contradictory statements about girlfriend, lying about just moving there, and not looking the officer in the eye when talking about girlfriend was reasonable suspicion and, with a criminal history check, all lawful actions reasonably extending the stop under Rodriguez. State v. Bullock<\/a>, 2017 N.C. LEXIS 896 (Nov. 3, 2017),* rev\u2019g 785 S.E.2d 746 (N.C. App. 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant \u201cargues LPD acted on that hunch when deciding the white Ford Explorer was involved in the February bank robbery, and there was no proof beyond a speculative hunch that the February suspect and the April suspect were the same … Continue reading