W.D.Tex.: Def’s calling for proof of insurance delayed the stop while drug dog came and alerted

The dog sniff did not prolong the stop – the dog arrived while defendant was calling his girlfriend about bringing his proof of insurance. Moreover, there was reasonable suspicion on the totality. United States v. Lincoln, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83522 (W.D. Tex. May 12, 2023). Update 5/15: Minn. Lawyer: Purse search deemed lawful under automobile exception by Laura Brown

“Testimony established that prior to the stop, officers had information that Terry was involved in narcotics transaction and had just engaged in what appeared to be drug related activities. Upon being stopped for the traffic violation, Terry immediately exited his vehicle, locked it, and walked away from the vehicle, contradicting the officers’ commands to get back in the car. Terry possessed large amounts of cash in small denominations consistent with drug dealing, carried a small pocketknife with what appeared to be narcotics residue, and several rocks of what appeared to be crack cocaine were on the ground near the driver’s side door. Based on the officers’ experience, inferences, and deductions about this cumulative evidence, probable cause existed that Terry’s vehicle contained drugs.” United States v. Terry, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11604 (5th Cir. May 11, 2023).*

The court finds the FBI TFO credible that defendant’s window tint justified the stop. United States v. McDonald, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83227 (N.D. Ohio May 11, 2023).* (FBI TFOs actually sometimes use traffic stops to get into the car.)

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.