Defendant was not told he was free to leave when the officer called for a drug dog. There was no reasonable suspicion for continuing the stop, so the use of the drug dog here was unreasonable. Bush v. State, 925 N.E.2d 787 (Ind. App. 2010):<\/p>\n
Bush argues the purpose of the traffic stop was complete before the canine unit arrived and thus the canine sniff of his automobile unreasonably prolonged his detention. Unlike either of the above sets of cases, we are faced with a record that, as the parties agree, is silent regarding the time frame of events. Thus, the burden of proof is potentially outcome determinative. The State conceded at oral argument, and we agree, “[t]he burden is on the State to show the time for the traffic stop was not increased due to the canine sweep.” Wells, 922 N.E.2d at 700 (quoting Wilson, 847 N.E.2d at 1067); see Bannister v. State, 904 N.E.2d 1254, 1256 (Ind. 2009) (under Fourth Amendment analysis of traffic stop, “[t]he State has the burden to show that under the totality of the circumstances its intrusion was reasonable”).<\/p>\n
Our review of the record discloses the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding “that the duration of the stop in this case was entirely justified by the traffic offense and the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop.” Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408. ….<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Being stopped in a high-crime area with a person leaning in the window is not reasonable suspicion. \u201cEven viewing all the facts asserted by the police in this matter as a whole, such facts fail \u2018to eliminate a substantial portion of innocent travelers.; Mathurin, 561 F. 3d at 174 (citing Karnes, 62 F.3d at 493).\u201d United States v. Gordon, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41811 (D. V.I. April 27, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading