\u201cHere, the Court finds that Trooper Amick did not have reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. Trooper Amick testified that he had asked for consent to search the vehicle because the conflicting stories by Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Diaz indicated some sort of deception. \u2026 Trooper Amick noted that he did not know what specific crime may have occurred but was suspicious that something was going on. \u2026 Trooper Amick also testified, however, that he asked Mr. Gonzalez where he was going a second time because the enforcement action was completed, and he thought Mr. Gonzalez would be less nervous answering. \u2026 Trooper Amick observed that \u2018[s]ometimes people are nervous when they’re talking to law enforcement and I always try to give them a chance to not be nervous because the enforcement action has already been completed, the warning.\u2019 \u2026 Trooper Amick’s recognition that sometimes responses are inconsistent due to nerves demonstrates that Mr. Gonzalez’s and Mr. Diaz’s conflicting stories cannot form reasonable suspicion standing alone. Trooper Amick did not have any other reason for extending the stop and seeking permission to search beyond his hunch that criminal activity was afoot. This is insufficient under the Fourth Amendment. As such, Defendant Gonzalez’s motion to suppress regarding the Fourth Amendment should be granted.\u201d United States v. Gonzalez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121431 (D. Ariz. July 9, 2020).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cHere, the Court finds that Trooper Amick did not have reasonable suspicion to extend the stop. Trooper Amick testified that he had asked for consent to search the vehicle because the conflicting stories by Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Diaz indicated … Continue reading