{"id":3639,"date":"2010-03-24T07:19:43","date_gmt":"2009-12-16T06:57:28","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-12-16T06:57:28","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3639","title":{"rendered":"WY: Past due rental agreement is a factor in RS; no duty in officer to call rental company"},"content":{"rendered":"

A past due rental agreement on a car is a factor in reasonable suspicion, and the officer has no legal obligation to call the car rental company to verify the defendant\u2019s assertion that it has been extended. Sutton v. State<\/a>, 2009 WY 148, 220 P.3d 784 (2009).<\/p>\n

Detailed information of a likely DUI from an identified citizen informer did not have to be fully corroborated. The car was seen, followed for about two blocks, and the car weaved within the lane 4-5 times. While weaving within the lane alone would not be enough, it was when coupled with the CI\u2019s report. State v. Van Dyke<\/a>, 2009 UT App 369, 223 P.3d 465, 645 Utah Adv. Rep. 19 (2009).*<\/p>\n

There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest, so his counsel could not have been ineffective for not challenging it. State v. Trujillo<\/a>, 153 Wn. App. 454, 222 P.3d 129 (2009).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s frisk was without reasonable suspicion under the state constitution. State v. Harrington<\/a>, 167 Wn. 2d 656 (2009).* Overview: <\/p>\n

Defendant endured a progressive intrusion at the hands of the police. Before an officer’s request to search, he did not ask for defendant’s name or address, did not conduct a warrant check, and did not ask if defendant carried drugs. Instead, the officer initiated contact with defendant on a dark street. The officer asked questions about defendant’s activities and travel that evening and found defendant’s answers suspicious. A second officer arrived at the scene and stood nearby. The first officer asked defendant to remove his hands from his pockets. Then he asked to frisk, without any specific and articulable facts that would create an objectively reasonable belief that defendant was armed and dangerous. Wash. Const. art. I, \u00a7 7, could not tolerate this progressive intrusion into defendant’s privacy. Because defendant’s consent to the search was obtained through exploitation of a prior illegal seizure, suppression of the evidence was required.<\/p><\/blockquote>\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-3639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3639","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=3639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}