Dispatch got report from the city\u2019s ShotSpotter system of gunshots from a moving car, and they sent officers to the scene where witnesses identified defendant\u2019s car. That was reasonable suspicion for the stop, and that ripened into probable cause. United States v. Thompson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38760 (M.D. Ala. February 14, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
In this case, the fact that Officer Capps did not hear gun shots himself is immaterial. He relied on the information from dispatch that the ShotSpotter system alerted to possible gun shots in the area. Moreover, when Officer Capps arrived on the scene, multiple witnesses pointed to the defendant\u2019s vehicle and told Capps that the man firing the weapon was in the vehicle. This information was sufficient to justify stopping Thompson\u2019s vehicle. Thereafter, reasonable suspicion developed into probable cause when Capps saw the gun in plain view between the driver’s seat and the console. When Capps saw the gun, he then had probable cause to arrest Thompson for discharging a weapon. Consequently, the court finds that the defendant’s rights secured by the Fourth Amendment were not violated because reasonable suspicion existed for the stop.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The record supports the USMJ\u2019s finding that the defendant consented to a search of his person. United States v. Fletcher, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38751 (E.D. Tenn. April 8, 2011).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s own testimony was that he consented to a search of his person in hopes of avoiding arrest, but that does not make the consent invalid. United States v. Fletcher, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142580 (E.D. Tenn. July 14, 2010)* [same case as previous one].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading