The extension of the stop wasn\u2019t based on reasonable suspicion; it was the officer trying to determine why defendant\u2019s license was revoked and whether defendant was who he said he was. \u201cUnder these circumstances, it is clear that the mission of the stop was incomplete up to the point that Stevens consented to the search of his vehicle. Thus, the length of the stop did not violate Stevens’s rights in any way.\u201d United States v. Stevens, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190842 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 4, 2019).<\/p>\n
Defendant wasn\u2019t under arrest nor was it even suggested to him that he was, so how could he flee arrest? Moreover, the police had no cause for an arrest. The claim that the officers said they smelled marijuana to justify the arrest of a nearby car that briefly stopped and drove off, a fact never noted in any paperwork or a search warrant application, \u201cstrains credibility.\u201d United States v. Howard, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190999 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 4, 2019).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The extension of the stop wasn\u2019t based on reasonable suspicion; it was the officer trying to determine why defendant\u2019s license was revoked and whether defendant was who he said he was. \u201cUnder these circumstances, it is clear that the mission … Continue reading