The detention here was without reasonable suspicion and was unduly extended with a prolonged \u201cfishing expedition\u201d of asking questions about the purpose of the trip in an effort to get inconsistencies. Only then was the drug dog brought out. The prolonging the stop was unreasonable. State v. Stover, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1813 (December 14, 2010), modified May 3, 2011:<\/p>\n
Here, there was an unnecessarily and unreasonably protracted detention before the officer tried to resolve his suspicions by direct confrontation about the suspicion, and summoning the drug dog. Our record suggests that this detention involved at least fifteen minutes of unnecessary compelled discussion that amounted to a \u201ccat and mouse game,\u201d conducted as though the travelers had \u201call the time in the world\u201d to talk to the officer. In Maginnis, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion but engaged in the same kind of prolonged discussion detention, hoping to develop reasonable suspicion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Iowa constitution\u2019s exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings, to further the remedial purposes of probation. State v. Shoemaker<\/a>, 2011 Iowa App. LEXIS 305 (May 11, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading