Defendant’s denials do not cause reasonable suspicion to evaporate

When activity appears to be suspicious, officers do not have to take at face value the detainee’s denials or explanations such that reasonable suspicion does not evaporate just because of the defendant’s denial. United States v. Kinsella, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23544 (D. Me. March 19, 2008).*

Informant was shown to be reliable by corroboration. United States v. Taylor, 519 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2008).*

Stop of defendant’s truck was valid because the officers were looking for defendant’s brother for whom they had a warrant and who could have been in the truck. That supported a plain view in the truck. United States v. Shields, 519 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2008).*

Civil case for knock and announce violation was not subject to summary judgment for qualified immunity because there were sufficient facts to go to trial on the failure of the officers to have exigent circumstances. Greathouse v. Couch, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23725 (E.D. Ky. March 25, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.