Anonymous 911 call corroborated at scene was sufficient

Anonymous call about a shooting incident that produced a witness at the scene who pointed out that the shooter went thataway was corroboration which that officer radioed to another which led to a stop. United States v. Traylor, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5708 (S.D. Ill. January 26, 2007).

Investigatory stop of a DUI suspect after his having allegedly driven his car into a ditch when he was seen as a passenger in another car was valid. Hartman v. State, 152 P.3d 1118 (Alaska January 26, 2007):

[Officer] Tuckwood therefore had a reasonable suspicion that someone had been driving the Honda while under the influence and that the intoxicated driver of the Honda was likely in the Ford Taurus when Tuckwood stopped it. Although Hartman was now a passenger in the Ford Taurus, this is not enough to show that he no longer posed an imminent public danger. Passenger status did not automatically establish a non-driving intention on Hartman’s part. Nor was Hartman’s non-ownership of the Ford Taurus determinative absent evidence that the owner of the vehicle was unwilling to give him a chance to drive. In view of Hartman’s continuing access to the Taurus, Tuckwood’s belief that Hartman posed an imminent public danger was reasonable. Therefore, under these circumstances, the investigatory stop was legal.

Officer’s call to EPIC about defendant’s immigration status did not unreasonably extend the stop because of the evidence of possible wrongdoing that the officer observed. United States v. Urrieta, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (M.D. Tenn. January 24, 2007).

Officers had reasonable suspicion for a stop of the defendants based on their observations. United States v. Saenz, 474 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. January 29, 2007):

Here, the officers had more than a mere hunch to justify the stop. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27. The officers knew of the wire transfer from Hernandez to Melissa Saenz, they had received information from a confidential source that she was visiting St. Charles, and they confirmed the presence of Emilio Saenz’s vehicle at Hernandez’s house. The officers also witnessed the blue pickup truck enter the garage and leave thirty minutes later, consistent with the unloading or loading of drugs or drug profits.

We conclude that the officers had reasonable suspicion to pull over the truck. Moreover, that suspicion did not dissolve after they talked with Emilio and Melissa Saenz because neither could name the sale price of the red truck which they both said they had sold to Hernandez and they gave conflicting responses about the location of the money they claimed to have received from the vehicle sale. We conclude the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.