Defendant\u2019s failure to laugh at the question of whether he had “firearms, drugs, cats, dogs, alligators, and weapons” in his vehicle stop was not reasonable suspicion. United States v. Holloway, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187752 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 18, 2023):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\nOfficer Smart testified that he regularly asks individuals a question concerning possession of “firearms, drugs, cats, dogs, alligators, and weapons” at vehicle stops because it “helps [him] read people’s body language and their demeanor.” \u2026 He further testified that he was trained by other officers to infer that an individual who does not laugh at such a question is nervous about either firearms or narcotics \u2026 and that he typically receives a “laughing response” to that question \u2026. While courts “do give considerable deference to police officers’ determinations of reasonable suspicion, \u2026 courts do not owe them blind deference.” United States v. Alvin, 701 F. App’x 151, 156 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). The Court does not find that laughing at a law enforcement officer while being questioned about drugs and weapons would be an appropriate response. Moreover, failing to laugh at a bizarre question while being questioned about drugs and weapons does not create reasonable suspicion to remove an individual from a car after a traffic violation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
Note that the officer said he got that from other officers, not from official training.<\/p>\n\n\n\n