The officers’ use of conversational speech in describing defendant\u2019s driving was not so vague that it did not show reasonable suspicion. \u201cWhile Burnett argues that Officer Fuhrman and Officer Winston failed to articulate facts supporting reasonable suspicion to justify the stop, because of the words \u2018looked like,\u2019 \u2018I guess,\u2019 and \u2018basically,\u2019 etc., Burnett places too much emphasis on what is normal speech and appears to be stretching to find an argument for suppressing the evidence. The officers’ testimony makes it clear that they witnessed Burnett violate two traffic laws, by driving at an unreasonable speed and failing to properly signal a turn, which justified the officers’ stop of the vehicle.\u201d United States v. Burnett, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37771 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 22, 2016).<\/p>\n
While defendant denied consent to search his car, the officer credibly testified that he smelled marijuana coming from it, and that justified its search. Brenes v. State<\/a>, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 2943 (Tex.App. \u2013 Texarkana March 23, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The officers’ use of conversational speech in describing defendant\u2019s driving was not so vague that it did not show reasonable suspicion. \u201cWhile Burnett argues that Officer Fuhrman and Officer Winston failed to articulate facts supporting reasonable suspicion to justify the … Continue reading