{"id":3616,"date":"2010-03-23T09:44:03","date_gmt":"2009-12-11T07:40:27","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-12-11T07:40:27","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3616","title":{"rendered":"CA10: Officer&#8217;s mistake of law in stopping a car with temporary tags and continuing stop after mistake discovered resulted in suppression"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Tenth Circuit discusses at length the basis for a stop under NM law for dealer tags that the officer thought at first were missing, but determined that they were valid, and that should have ended the stop.  Continuing the stop was unreasonable. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca10.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/08\/08-2169.pdf\">United States v. Pena-Montes<\/a>, 589 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2009)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Viewing the government&#8217;s asserted factors in concert, we conclude that Officer Hernandez lacked a &#8220;particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.&#8221; United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S. Ct. 744, 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 (2002) (quotation omitted). To conclude otherwise would grant permission to the APD to detain and question every car with a dealer plate driving along Central Avenue after most dealerships are closed. Cf. Aguilar, 155 P.3d at 773.  We decline to sign this blank check. As in McSwain, the law enforcement officer should not have questioned the driver of the vehicle after his sole cause for suspicion was dispelled. Here, that suspicion was dispelled when Hernandez observed the dealer plate in the Yukon&#8217;s window. At that point, an officer&#8217;s permissible conduct is limited: &#8220;As a matter of courtesy, the officer could explain to drivers in [these] circumstances the reason for the initial detention and then allow them to continue on their way without asking them to produce their driver&#8217;s license and registration.&#8221; McSwain, 29 F.3d at 562. Because Hernandez failed to follow this guidance and chose to further pursue his investigation without a basis in reasonable suspicion, his actions violated the Fourth Amendment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>United States v. Monghur, 576 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2009), <a href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/blog\/index.php?blog=1&amp;title=ca9_disclosure_of_information_about_a_gu&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1\">posted here<\/a>, was <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2009\/12\/04\/08-10351.pdf\">amended 588 F.3d 975<\/a> (9th Cir. 2009): Defendant did not waive his reasonable expectation of privacy in a closed container when he revealed it contained a gun in a jailhouse telephone call that he would know would be recorded.<\/p>\n<p>Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114195 (D. N.M. October 23, 2009), on an illegal administrative search, resulted in a jury verdict of $1.00. Prior opinions: Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56840 (D. N.M. July 6, 2009) (<a href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/blog\/index.php?blog=1&amp;title=w_d_pa_discretion_to_inventory_does_not_&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1\">posted here<\/a>); Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris, 632 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (D. N.M. 2008) (<a href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/blog\/index.php?blog=1&amp;title=ca10_gfe_first_and_pc_does_not_have_to_b&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1\">posted here<\/a>); Copar Pumice Co. v. Morris, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42350 (D. N.M. March 21, 2008) (<a href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/blog\/index.php?blog=1&amp;title=confession_of_possession_of_child_porn_s&amp;more=1&amp;c=1&amp;tb=1&amp;pb=1\">posted here<\/a>).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3616\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-3616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3616","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=3616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}