IL: Officer’s experience must be credited in finding reasonable suspicion

Questions to the defendant after his traffic stop were not unreasonable and did not extend the stop. The officer’s experience in evaluating a drug interdiction stop has to be given credit. People v. Roa, 398 Ill. App. 3d 158, 923 N.E.2d 401, 337 Ill. Dec. 842 (2010), As Amended March 8, 2010 (on remand in light of People v. Cosby, 231 Ill. 2d 262, 898 N.E.2d 603, 325 Ill. Dec. 556 (2008)):

As stated in our prior opinion, effective and efficient interstate drug couriers can successfully avoid apprehension by camouflaging their illegal activity with something as innocuous as an air freshener. Meaningless minutiae that might go unnoticed by the untrained person may become a significant factor to an experienced drug interdiction officer considering the totality of the circumstances attendant to the traveler at hand. The trial judge found the officer’s testimony credible and the basis of his suspicions justified.

Defense counsel waived the motion to suppress in this case by waiting too long to file it, but that did not matter because the trial court on the proffer found that the search was by consent as an alternative ground. State v. Paige, 202 N.C. App. 516, 689 S.E.2d 193 (2010).*

Squealing tires is reasonable suspicion for a stop, and this one led to a DWI. Fernandez v. State, 306 S.W.3d 354 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 2010).*

Defendant’s traffic stop was justified by the fact the license plate came back with no record. Reasonable suspicion quickly developed from appearance of the car and the nervousness of the driver. United States v. Duran, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13958 (S.D. Tex. February 18, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.