CA8: Defendant who matched description of bank robber could be put in police car during traffic stop

It was reasonable to put defendant in the back of a police car for the time being while the officer investigated further. Defendant and his car matched the description from a bank robbery that happened within the hour. United States v. Rush, 651 F.3d 871 (8th Cir. 2011).*

Defendant was stopped for following too close, and he had two rifles in the back seat. He invited the officer to “run” them, which prolonged the stop. Then he consented to a search. The officer noticed the console didn’t fit right and removed part of it, and that was not a “dismantling” of the car. United States v. McCall, 433 Fed. Appx. 432 (6th Cir. 2011).*

Driver and passenger were unable to provide basic information about their trip and that provided reasonable suspicion. United States v. Olvera, 437 Fed. Appx. 305 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant walking away from the area of a recent car break-in when he was the only person around, and he matched the description of one of the two involved. State v. Kessler, 151 Idaho 653, 262 P.3d 682 (2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.