\u201cThe evidence shows that Trooper Rohr issued the warning, returned Defendant’s papers to him, told him to have a safe trip and turned away from Defendant’s pickup truck to return to his patrol car. He then turned back and asked Defendant if he could question him but also told Defendant he was free to go. Trooper Rohr’s demeanor was not threatening or coercive. Defendant agreed to answer Trooper Rohr’s questions. Under these circumstances, the Court finds a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe he was free to leave or disregard Trooper Rohr’s request to ask additional questions.\u201d It was consent and not coercive. United States v. Cabrera, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64994 (W.D. Okla. May 19, 2015).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s stop for an illegible and faded temporary paper tag was proper. Pabst v. State<\/a>, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5055 (Tex. App. \u2013 Houston (14th Dist.) May 19, 2015).*<\/p>\n The video of the stop showed defendant unsafely drifting out of the lane. The video also did not belie the officer\u2019s statement supporting the probable cause for Franks purposes, so defendant failed in that showing. Dashcam video was not amenable to the subtleties of what officers observe standing in front of the suspect. Dunn v. State<\/a>, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5196 (Tex. App. \u2013 Ft. Worth May 21, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cThe evidence shows that Trooper Rohr issued the warning, returned Defendant’s papers to him, told him to have a safe trip and turned away from Defendant’s pickup truck to return to his patrol car. He then turned back and asked … Continue reading