OR: Questions unrelated to stop unreasonably extended it

“At the outset of the stop, West asked defendant a series of questions: (1) ‘Do you live in this area?’; (2) ‘What are you doing up here?’; (3) ‘Where are you coming from today?’; and (4) if West could see the citation that was in defendant’s car.” None of these had anything to do with speeding, and they unreasonably extended the stop. State v. Krieger, 318 Ore. App. 441, 2022 Ore. App. LEXIS 479 (Mar. 23, 2022).

“Viewing the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 244 (2013), through the ‘lens of common sense,’ as the Supreme Court has instructed, id. at 248, these facts collectively give rise to probable cause to believe that a search of 1698 Coventry would uncover evidence of drug trafficking. It is, therefore, unnecessary to evaluate whether the trash pulls, which yielded evidence limited to Saunt, supported a search of James’ residence.” United States v. James, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51393 (N.D.Ohio Mar. 22, 2022).*

Reasonable suspicion for continuing defendant’s speeding stop came from a CI coupled with observations at the scene. United States v. Douville, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51494 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.