The government failed to show articulable reasonable suspicion for prolonging the stop. United States v. Mendez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49534 (M.D. Ga. May 18, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
This is a fairly close case. The question boils down to whether there was an articulable suspicion which would justify prolongation of the traffic stop to the point where permission to search was asked for and granted. In the Court’s opinion, the reasons given by the deputies to support their suspicion do not support anything in this case. The reasons are all reasons the Court has heard many times in many cases. If Defendant had rented the car for one day and said he was going to Florida, the circumstances may have been suspicious, but there is nothing suspicious about going from Gwinnett County to Moultrie and back in one day. Similarly, if Defendant had been going from Gwinnett County to Florida, the absence of luggage may have been sufficient to raise articulable suspicion. Further, while Broce testified that Defendant acted extremely nervous during the traffic stop, to the extent one can observe nervousness on a tape, the Court saw no nervousness on Defendant’s part during the traffic stop. Defendant stood there and responded to both officers, and in fact, the Court has never seen anyone act less nervous. Finally, the fact that Defendant was coming from Gwinnett County by itself does not support an articulable suspicion of criminal activity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[Is this dangerously close to Arvizu<\/a>\u2019s \u201cdivide and conquer\u201d of reasonable suspicion but with a twist? After all, the court completely discredits nervousness.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading