Religious items can be reasonable suspicion when combined with other factors. United States v. Baranoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80095 (N.D. Fla. October 29, 2007):<\/p>\n
In this case, the strong smell of the cleaning liquid, the religious items in and on the van, and the Defendant’s nervous behavior, combined with Deputy Condy’s training and experience in narcotics investigations all created a set of circumstances giving him “reasonable suspicion that an additional crime was being committed”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2254 petitioner was denied relief because the findings of the state court were fully supported by the evidence (28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2254(d)) that petitioner abandoned the property and disclaimed any interest in it. Ramirez v. Phillips, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79936 (S.D. N.Y. October 30, 2007).* (Comment:<\/em> This case is part of what is a noticeable shift from Stone v. Powell<\/em><\/a> being an absolute bar to \u00a7 2254(d) being a factual and legal bar under AEDPA. In this case, Stone<\/em> was an alternative finding.)<\/p>\n
Defendant police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for plaintiff’s arrest. The officer actually had probable cause before the arrest, and he prudently chose to keep investigating. Plaster v. Boswell, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80197 (W.D. Va. October 30, 2007).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading