Defendant\u2019s stop was pretextual, but it was with an objective basis. He was leaving a funeral at night with overtinted windows, and the officer couldn\u2019t see inside. He was repeatedly asked about firearms in the car, something unrelated to the stop and without any reasonable suspicion. Q: “Is there maybe a gun in there? It’s not a big deal; I promise. I swear to God, it ain’t a big deal. I understand, you’ve gotta protect yourself.” A: “My gun’s in there.” Defendant was pulled out and handcuffed for \u201cdetention,\u201d not arrest. The questions about a \u201clittle bit of bud\u201d and the gun were unrelated to the stop, unreasonably extended it, and the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Eberhardt, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159837 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 19, 2019).<\/p>\n
Remanded for factual findings that support the denial of the motion to suppress. The state contended a lack of standing in a shed behind a house, and, in a factually similar case, the defendant there disclaimed ownership of the shed. Here, the defendant didn\u2019t. The findings don\u2019t provide support for the trial court\u2019s order. State v. Albritten<\/a>, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 506 (Sept. 18, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s stop was pretextual, but it was with an objective basis. He was leaving a funeral at night with overtinted windows, and the officer couldn\u2019t see inside. He was repeatedly asked about firearms in the car, something unrelated to the … Continue reading