\u201c[I]t was reasonable for Trooper Burgett to suspect that criminal conduct was afoot. The stop was initially for a mere traffic infraction, but when Defendant Sanders provided the wrong rental agreement, things shifted. The incorrect rental agreement was a catalyst for further questioning by Trooper Burgett. From that further conversation, Trooper Burgett realized that the Defendants’ travel plans (renting a car to drive from Florida to Pennsylvania, with no clear plans of when Defendants would return to Florida), \u2018did not track.\u2019 He specifically asked multiple questions about those plans during his questioning of Defendant Sanders. It was only after that questioning and analysis of Defendants’ responses, including the Defendant Jordan’s nervous demeanor, that Trooper Burgett called the K9 Unit. In the totality of the circumstances, Trooper Burgett had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop.\u201d United States v. Jordan, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201565 (N.D.Ohio Oct. 20, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the officer approached defendant\u2019s vehicle in the dark parked unusually in an alley, he focused more on the driver and what he was doing than a required DMV sticker on the car which was part of the original reason for approaching. His mistake of fact on that score as he concentrated on the driver was reasonable. State v. St. Cyr<\/a>, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 887 (Oct. 20, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201c[I]t was reasonable for Trooper Burgett to suspect that criminal conduct was afoot. The stop was initially for a mere traffic infraction, but when Defendant Sanders provided the wrong rental agreement, things shifted. The incorrect rental agreement was a catalyst … Continue reading