\u201cThe Court need not discredit Parker’s theory of pretext in order to find it inconsequential: perhaps the detectives indeed stopped the car not because of a seat belt violation but because of the alleged firearm incident-but the stop remains constitutional. A traffic stop’s legality hinges upon \u2018the validity of the officers’ objective explanation for making the stop, not on the subjective intentions of the officers in initiating the stop.\u2019 United States v. Herbin, 343 F.3d 807, 809 (6th Cir. 2003). Even if the traffic offense is a minor one, an officer’s subjective intentions are extraneous to the Fourth Amendment analysis ….\u201d United States v. Parker, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58557 (W.D. Ky. April 28, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s stop for not using a turn signal was valid and led to a finding that his license was suspended and an impound of his vehicle. He contended his stop was for allegedly patronizing prostitutes, but it had a valid legal basis. Defendant was linked to multiple murders and sentenced to death. People v. Suff<\/a>, 58 Cal. 4th 1013 (April 28, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cThe Court need not discredit Parker’s theory of pretext in order to find it inconsequential: perhaps the detectives indeed stopped the car not because of a seat belt violation but because of the alleged firearm incident-but the stop remains constitutional. … Continue reading