Three federal reasonable suspicion cases today

Reasonable suspicion for continuing a stop. United States v. Juarez-Moreno, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160650 (D. Utah October 16, 2013)*:

1. Recent Vehicle Registration. …
2. Third-PartyVehicle Registration. …
3. Lack of Knowledge of Vehicle Owner. …
4. Vague, Inconsistent, or Evasive Answers. …
5. Deceptive answers. …
6. Other Indicators. Trooper Wood noted a single key in the ignition, rather than on a key ring with other keys, suggesting the vehicle may have been purchased or used for illegal activity. … Trooper Wood also took note of luggage on the rear seat of the car—rather than in the trunk as is generally the case for the motoring public—a circumstance he has observed in other pipeline stops. … Trooper Wood has observed these same indicators during other pipeline stops. … And, while of limited significance, such indicators nevertheless support a finding of reasonable suspicion to briefly detain the defendant for further investigation.

Reasonable suspicion near the border for an immigration stop: United States v. Russell, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158945 (D. Ariz. September 17, 2013)*, adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158946 (D. Ariz. Nov. 5, 2013)*:

The factors relied upon by Agent Cordova in this case were as follows: sensor activity showed vehicle traffic in an area commonly used by alien and drug traffickers to circumvent the border patrol check point; the area where the senor was located was a desolate area, accessible only by a dirt road; the car was relatively clean indicating that it had recently been on a paved highway; Defendant’s car was the only one seen coming out of the area; the car was registered to a woman in Phoenix and was not a car that was familiar to the agent as belonging to one of the locals; and the car was riding low as if it was carrying a heavy load.

Defendant’s car was stopped because it was speeding in a high crime area at night, and, when the police car was seen, it jerked back into its lane. When the car was stopped, defendant fled from the car. That was all reasonable suspicion. United States v. Edmonds, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160773 (W.D. Pa. November 12, 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.