Defendant was stopped for having trim around the license plate that covered the state of issuance. The officer asked her questions, and she \u201centhusiastically\u201d agreed to let him keep asking. The suspicion, however, never ripened into something articulable, and the USMJ recommended suppression. United States v. Martin, 679 F. Supp. 2d 723 (W.D. La. 2009)*:<\/p>\n
Perhaps of even greater importance is Linton’s failure to explain a link between Martin’s purportedly suspicious behavior and any specific criminal activity. Jenson, 462 F.3d at 405; Thibodeaux, supra. Linton testified that based upon all of the facts that he identified, he believed that Martin was up to no good and that “something [was] wrong.” Linton later reiterated that he had determined that “something was wrong” and that he was going to search her vehicle. Linton, however, did not articulate how Martin’s behavior and the remaining circumstances indicate that she was engaged in illegal drug activity or some other specific criminal activity. See Jenson, supra; see also Santiago, supra (search was unreasonable even though officer thought that the car might contain drugs, because any suspicion of drug trafficking was dispelled once the licenses cleared). Accordingly, Linton’s suspicions comprised no more than a hunch, albeit a very good one. Jenson, supra; Thibodeaux, supra. Hunches, however, do not suffice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Tossing a cigarette from a car justified its stop for littering, and a drug dog arrived within two minutes, which did not unreasonably extend the stop. United States v. Roach, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3769 (D. S.C. January 15, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Rolling stop justified traffic stop, and defendant was found to have consented to a search of his car. United States v. Cousin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123457 (E.D. Tenn. November 18, 2009)*; United States v. Coachman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4113 (W.D. Pa. January 20, 2010).*<\/p>\n
In that same case, an equal protection claim is not subject to suppression. United States v. Cousin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123481 (E.D. Tenn. November 23, 2009):<\/p>\n
Because the exclusionary rule is not an appropriate remedy for an Equal Protection violation by police pursuant to United States v. Nichols, 512 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2007), it is RECOMMENDED that defendant’s motion to suppress and defendant’s request for additional discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his Equal Protection claim be DENIED.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading