MN: “Deer-in-the-headlights” look is a factor in RS

“But statements about a deer-in-the-headlights facial expression are commonplace in caselaw assessing whether a police officer has articulable, reasonable suspicion to justify a stop under the Fourth Amendment. There are over a dozen federal appellate decisions, including an opinion from the Eighth Circuit, where this phrase is cited as a factor that supports the constitutionality of a stop or search. See, e.g., United States v. Orth, 873 F.3d 349, 352 (1st Cir. 2017); United States v. Hall, 193 Fed. Appx. 125, 127 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Mays, 643 F.3d 537, 542 (6th Cir. 2011); United States v. Patton, 705 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Hill, 1 Fed. Appx. 606, 608 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Jensen, 41 Fed. Appx. 346, 350 (10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Jones, 562 F.3d 768, 772 (6th Cir. 2008).” In re Short Call Substitute Teaching License in re Yanez, 2022 Minn. App. LEXIS 150 (Nov. 28, 2022).*

“We agree with the district court that Glasgow seized Dixon for Fourth Amendment purposes when he told Dixon and Montgomery to ‘hold up’ and go back inside the house for questioning because the record is clear they were not free to leave.” There was no probable cause on plaintiff’s version of the facts, so no qualified immunity. Dixon v. City of Birmingham, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 32680 (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2022).*

Officers grabbed at defendant in a raid of an “illegal speakeasy,” and he abandoned a gun. It was not yet an arrest. United States v. Burgess, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213300 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.