{"id":4210,"date":"2011-01-11T15:47:12","date_gmt":"2010-05-22T10:12:07","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-05-22T10:12:07","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4210","title":{"rendered":"CA7: In \u00a7 1983 case, PC for stop must be developed before stop, not after"},"content":{"rendered":"

The question for the legality of the stop is what the officer knew at the time of the stop, not what he learned after. Here, the officer admittedly lacked justification for the stop. Reversed. Carmichael v. Village of Palatine<\/a>, 360 Fed. Appx. 686 (7th Cir. 2010)*:<\/p>\n

Our earlier discussion should make clear–but we pause to emphasize–that our focus on the facts Officer Sharkey knew at the time that he decided to stop the vehicle, as evidenced by the defendants’ admission and Officer Sharkey’s own statements, should not be misread as adopting a subjective standard that focuses on Officer Sharkey’s motivations. See Williams, 509 F.3d at 398-99. Indeed, this case involves a straightforward application of the objective test set forth by the Supreme Court in Whren, which requires us to evaluate probable cause from the perspective of a reasonable officer who saw what Officer Sharkey saw and heard what he heard. See United States v. Parra, 402 F.3d 752, 764 (7th Cir. 2005). The objective perspective dictated by Whren and its progeny prevents courts from eschewing objective facts in favor of evaluating the subjective motivations of a particular officer; however, it is not meant to give an arresting officer the added benefit of any facts that come to light after a relevant Fourth Amendment decision has been made. See Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153, 154 (noting the purposes of the objective test, including its assurance “that the constitutionality of an arrest under a given set of known facts” will not vary “from place to place and from time to time” (internal quotation marks omitted)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The officer\u2019s trash search at defendant\u2019s house corroborated the informant who said that he saw marijuana in the house just before. The search warrant was issued with probable cause. Flores v. State<\/a>, 319 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4210","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}