KS: Extending stop on a hunch lacked RS

“LaGuardia argues that Officer Opperman lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop from a crash report to a DUI investigation. He claims that the officer investigated LaGuardia for DUI only because he abandoned his vehicle after the accident in snowy conditions. LaGuardia argues that the officer did not notice any signs of impairment or smell alcohol on his breath before he started the DUI investigation, but only thought he was trying to hide something. In other words, Opperman acted off a hunch, or something less, which falls short of reasonable suspicion. Pollman, 286 Kan. at 890 (an unparticularized hunch is not reasonable suspicion). We agree.” City of Overland Park v. LaGuardia, 2024 Kan. App. LEXIS 22 (July 5, 2024).

“McKoy now moves to disclose the identity of the confidential informant and also to suppress the evidence seized from the search of the apartment. I will deny the motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant, because McKoy has not shown good reason to believe that disclosure is necessary for him to present a defense or to seek the suppression of evidence. On the other hand, McKoy has made enough of a showing to warrant an in camera interview of the confidential informant. I will deny the motion to suppress because McKoy has not made a substantial preliminary showing that there were any materially false statements or omissions in the search warrant affidavit that supported the search of the apartment.” United States v. McKoy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118925 (D. Conn. July 8, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.