Defendants were stopped in a rental car after pulling off to avoid a ruse checkpoint sign, and then they failed to stop at a stop sign. The officer\u2019s statement to keep their hands in view was not coercive and did not show a detention. Finally, after all the papers were handed back, the defendants mentioned switching drivers at that point, and that indicated they knew they were free to leave. At that point, the officer asked about consent to search the vehicle, so the stop was extended voluntarily. United States v. Williams, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15739 (D.Kan. February 10, 2015).* [I never buy these cases; the officer needs to say, he\u2019s done and \u201cyou\u2019re free to go\u201d because human nature is not to leave and risk fleeing. The officer may know he can\u2019t detain you, but the driver doesn\u2019t know that.]<\/p>\n
Furtive movements at the time of the stop and being unreasonably nervous was reasonable suspicion for extending a stop. State v. Ellis<\/a>, 2015-Ohio-472, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 439 (5th Dist. February 5, 2015).*<\/p>\n 2255 petitioner\u2019s argument that defense counsel was ineffective for not effectively arguing the motion to suppress is denied. \u201cThe petitioner has not identified any specific conduct by defense counsel that even approaches deficient performance. Defense counsel vigorously litigated the Fourth Amendment challenge by filing three motions and conducting a hearing. At the hearing, he cross-examined the government’s witnesses effectively, cited the relevant law, and filed opening and supplemental briefs.\u201d Maldonado v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15697 (E.D. Mich. February 10, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendants were stopped in a rental car after pulling off to avoid a ruse checkpoint sign, and then they failed to stop at a stop sign. The officer\u2019s statement to keep their hands in view was not coercive and did … Continue reading