Defendant was unreasonably detained after he produced a Mexican driver’s license which was facially valid and could be used to identify him. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Izguerra-Robles, 660 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Ore. 2009):<\/p>\n
The government contends that defendant was lawfully placed under arrest only after failing to display a driver’s license. This court disagrees and finds that defendant was constructively arrested when he was ordered from the mobile home. See United States v. Al-Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890, 892-94 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that coercive police conduct outside a home can result in the arrest of person within the home). Based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in defendant’s position would not feel he was free to disobey the two police officers ordering him from the mobile home. Although the police officers did not brandish their weapons, defendant was given no choice but to exit the mobile home on their orders.<\/p>\n
Even assuming defendant was not arrested until he failed to display a driver’s license, and assuming the police had probable cause to effect that arrest, the scope of the arrest exceeded that granted by ORS 807.570. Under ORS 807.570, failure to present a license is an arrestable offense. However, “[a] police officer may detain a person arrested … only for such time as reasonably necessary to investigate and verify the person’s identity.” This offense does not allow “officers to use it as a ploy to conduct otherwise unauthorized searches.” State v. Bishop, 157 Ore. App. 33, 967 P.2d 1241, 1245 (Or. App. 1998). Once the person’s identity is verified, “detention is no longer reasonably necessary and the individual must be released.” Id.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Another Gant remand: United States v. Casper<\/a>, 536 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2008), vacated and remanded, 129 S. Ct. 2156, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1153 (2009), posted here<\/a>, remanded to the District Court for application of inevitable discovery, an issue preserved by the government. United States v. Casper<\/a>, 332 Fed. Appx. 222 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search because defendant lacked standing. United States v. Cook<\/a>, 344 Fed. Appx. 473 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was not arrested or detained when he was talked to by police, and his own admissions gave reasonable suspicion for an immigration stop. United States v. Vasquez-Ortiz<\/a>, 344 Fed. Appx. 551 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading