Officers were conducting a knock-and-talk, and defendant refused to show his right hand which was behind his back or come out. That justified an entry to see if it was a weapon. United States v. Brooks, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22458 (N.D. W.Va. February 23, 2012). [So much for the ability to exclude.]<\/p>\n
The stop was justified by a reasonable belief that some traffic offense occurred. It doesn\u2019t matter that the officer can\u2019t fully articulate the proper one. United States v. Guevara, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20910 (D. Neb. February 21, 2012):<\/p>\n
Law enforcement officers are not expected to “interpret the traffic laws with the subtlety and expertise of a criminal defense attorney,” United States v. Martin, 411 F.3d 998, 1001 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Sanders, 196 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir.1999)). The determination of objective reasonableness “is not to be made with the vision of hindsight, but instead by looking to what the officer reasonably knew at the time.” United States v. Smart, 393 F.3d 767, 770 (8th Cir.2005). If an officer makes a mistake in law or fact, the mistake “must be objectively reasonable to avoid running afoul of the Fourth Amendment.” Martin, 411 F.3d at 1001.<\/p>\n
All that was required in this case was a reasonable suspicion that some traffic violation occurred. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading