Defendants\u2019 stop was with probable cause for not signaling an abrupt turn. During the stop and running the paperwork, the owner of the car validly consented. United States v. Crawley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135212 (E.D. Tenn. June 29, 2010)*:<\/p>\n
In summary, Everett<\/a> establishes a simple framework for prolongation cases: if the traffic stop is \u201ccompleted\u201d or \u201cdefinitively abandon[ed],\u201d the officer must have independent reasonable suspicion supporting any further detention at the moment of completion or abandonment. See United States v. Urrieta, 520 F.3d 569, 574 (6th Cir. 2008). On the other hand, if the officer continues to pursue the purposes of the original traffic stop throughout the encounter, a reviewing court must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the duration of the stop as a whole, with due consideration to the time spent on unrelated inquiries (such as questioning or dog sniffs), was reasonable\u2014in other words, whether the \u201cbulk of the interaction\u201d between the officer and the suspect was monopolized by the unrelated inquiry. Everett<\/a>, 601 F.3d at 494, 495.<\/p>\n
Here, the traffic stop was never abandoned, and it was not completed until after Crawley, the owner of the car, gave consent to search the inside of the car. Lilly\u2019s undisputed testimony established that Crawley told Lilly he could search the \u201cinside\u201d of the car before Lilly issued the summonses to Allen. The relevant inquiry in this case, therefore, is whether Lilly \u201cdiligently\u201d pursued the purposes of the traffic stop throughout the encounter, and if he did not, whether the prolongation was supported by independent reasonable suspicion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Taken as a whole, the officer had reasonable suspicion for defendant\u2019s detention for nervous behavior, failure to make eye contact, driving on a drug corridor in a rented car claiming no rental contract. United States v. Derrick, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135585 (M.D. Ill. December 22, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s arrest for driving on a suspended DL came after he was stopped for speeding. The computer check is PC. The officer did not have to Mirandize him before asking why he was speeding. United States v. Shirley, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135376 (N.D. Ga. November 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading