The stop of defendant\u2019s car for exiting a parking lot too slowly in a high crime area lacked reasonable suspicion, and the stop and its fruits are suppressed. United States v. Williams, 804 F. Supp. 2d 659 (M.D. Tenn. 2011)*:<\/p>\n
The Court next examines the existing contextual considerations. In United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 467 (6th Cir. 2006), the Sixth Circuit noted the relevant contextual consideration of time of day and crime area in supporting the stop, but warned not to rely \u201ctoo easily or too heavily\u201d on these contextual factors. The Sixth Circuit held that based on the totality of the circumstances, \u201can individual, whose general appearance and location matched the description given in the anonymous shot-fired call, fled and made furtive movements when approached by the police late at night [1:20 a.m.] in a high-crime area -provided reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop.\u201d Id. at 468.<\/p>\n
Here, the stop occurred shortly before 4:00 a.m. in an area known for weapons and fighting, which are relevant factors that support the stop. Yet, the Defendant was driving slowly, fully complied, and did not demonstrate nervous or evasive behavior, which are also relevant factors that do not support the stop. After considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that there was not reasonable suspicion for the Terry stop of Defendant\u2019s vehicle on February 13, 2010. Accordingly, the Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress (Docket Entry No. 21) should be granted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The district court\u2019s finding of voluntary consent was supported by the record. Just because the officers were not exact on defendant\u2019s words, they were the only witnesses, so the finding is supported by the record. United States v. Webster<\/a>, 418 Fed. Appx. 519 (7th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n
A computer technician found child pornography on defendant\u2019s computer and reported it to the police. They obtained a search warrant application that omitted significant details of the investigation, but that did not undermine the probable cause that was shown. United States v. Shelton<\/a>, 418 Fed. Appx. 514 (7th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading