\u201c[T]he officer did not commit an unlawful seizure when he instructed Salazar-Lopez to sit in the patrol car. The move to the patrol car did not impermissibly prolong the traffic stop, and was incidental to the mission of the stop.\u201d Questions about his trip didn\u2019t unreasonably prolong the stop. \u201cMoreover, Salazar-Lopez’s answers warranted the officer’s brief follow-up questions when Salazar-Lopez could not readily identify where he was driving from and could not produce the rental agreement for the car he was driving.\u201d United States v. Salazar-Lopez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51516 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 25, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The plaintiff prisoner stated a claim for arbitrary or retaliatory strip searches after medical visits that didn\u2019t compare to other reasons. Khan v. Barela<\/a>, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9438 (10th Cir. Mar. 26, 2020). \u201c[T]he officer did not commit an unlawful seizure when he instructed Salazar-Lopez to sit in the patrol car. The move to the patrol car did not impermissibly prolong the traffic stop, and was incidental to the mission of the stop.\u201d … Continue reading
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"