N.D.Cal.: Criminal history and normal nervousness not RS

The probation inquiry during a traffic stop lacked reasonable suspicion and was unreasonable. Defendant was always cooperative, and his criminal history and normal nervousness added nothing. “The Government does not argue that Officer Guajardo’s decision to tow Odom’s vehicle without a warrant was justified by a Fourth Amendment exception. It only argues that the tow was lawful under a section of the California Vehicle Code. … But the question ‘is not whether the search (or seizure) was authorized by state law. The question is rather whether the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.’ Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 61 (1968) (quotations and citation omitted).” It was not. As to the frisk of the defendant, reasonable suspicion was not shown on the totality for it, either. “Considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court finds that the Government has not established that Officer Guajardo possessed individualized, reasonable suspicion that Odom was armed and dangerous at the time of the stop. The factors that Defendants list do not justify the pat-down search, especially in light of Odom’s cooperative behavior.” “The Government must do more to carry its burden. The time of day does not provide individualized suspicion. And the fact that a person has a prior criminal record does not sufficiently establish that he is currently armed and dangerous. The Government has also not shown that the nervousness went beyond the normal behavior of a person who is pulled over by the police. The Government has therefore failed to carry its burden.” United States v. Odom, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38196 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 4, 2022).