The stop was valid. \u201cWhether Flores actually violated the law is immaterial. The question is only whether Deputy Broce had probable cause to suspect that Flores was committing a traffic violation.\u201d The officer could ask defendant to produce what created the large bulge in his pocket, which was $6,000 in cash. United States v. Flores, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89825 (E.D. Ky. July 2, 2014).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was in an auto parts store and the clerk reported him as a possible DUI when he left. An officer encountered him and observed bad driving and stopped him. While Navarrette<\/a> came down after this case was briefed, it doesn\u2019t affect the outcome because here there was corroboration. State v. Burkett<\/a>, 2014 SD 38, 2014 S.D. LEXIS 56 (June 25, 2014).*<\/p>\n A juvenile wearing baggy pants and looking at a police car is not reasonable suspicion. In re M.P.<\/a>, 2014-Ohio-2846, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 2863 (1st Dist. June 30, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The stop was valid. \u201cWhether Flores actually violated the law is immaterial. The question is only whether Deputy Broce had probable cause to suspect that Flores was committing a traffic violation.\u201d The officer could ask defendant to produce what created … Continue reading