After a robbery report, the two apparent suspects had been arrested. Yet, the investigation continued and stopped defendant in the vicinity, and the inferences used to justify it aren\u2019t even reasonable. \u201cEven crediting Deputy Niles’s testimony that store robberies typically involve a getaway driver (and there is no reason not to), the officers still did not have sufficient articulable facts that would support a reasonable suspicion to believe that Mr. Street, in particular, was the missing cohort. Indeed, this suspicion could have been reasonable under only two scenarios: (1) Mr. Street was the getaway driver, or (2) Mr. Street was one of the two men who entered the Verizon store. Based on the facts known to law enforcement at the time of the stop, neither inference would have been reasonable.\u201d \u201cAside from being one of the only black males in the crowd, Mr. Street stood out, according to Deputy Niles, because he walked straight ahead, held a cell phone to his ear, and did not make eye contact with anyone else. These facts, however, do not add anything to the reasonable suspicion analysis.\u201d United States v. Keycie, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64229 (E.D.Wis. Mar. 28, 2016),* adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64222 (E.D. Wis. May 16, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After a robbery report, the two apparent suspects had been arrested. Yet, the investigation continued and stopped defendant in the vicinity, and the inferences used to justify it aren\u2019t even reasonable. \u201cEven crediting Deputy Niles’s testimony that store robberies typically … Continue reading