Despite the criminal charges being dropped because city officers were outside their jurisdiction, the whole matter was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because reasonableness doesn\u2019t depend on state law violations. Kosiba v. Kleine, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139379 (D. Neb. Aug. 10, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, Trooper Powell testified to six factors that contributed to his suspicion before he extended the traffic stop by asking Defendant to exit his vehicle. These factors amounted to reasonable suspicion when considered in totality. Accordingly, because Trooper Powell had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before he deviated from the traffic-based mission of the stop, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, and the evidence resulting from the stop will not be suppressed.\u201d Extending the stop 104 minutes for the drug dog was reasonable. United States v. Wilkenson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139141 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant wasn\u2019t blocked in and wasn\u2019t seized. He still had the ability to avoid the encounter, which he did by fleeing. United States v. Zamora, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139105 (D. Mont. Aug. 9, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Despite the criminal charges being dropped because city officers were outside their jurisdiction, the whole matter was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because reasonableness doesn\u2019t depend on state law violations. Kosiba v. Kleine, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139379 (D. Neb. … Continue reading