\u201cBecause they had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the BPD officers were entitled to exert a minimal restraint on Defendant’s freedom of movement by directing him to roll down his vehicle’s windows in order to investigate further.\u201d \u201cIn the instant case, for a little over an hour, Defendant stood outside his rental vehicle in a public parking garage and spoke in a conversational manner with two police officers in plain clothes with holstered firearms. During the encounter, he was permitted to call Ms. Roberts on his cell phone and he arranged for Sergeant Petralia to speak with her as well. It is unclear whether the BPD officers retained his identification or returned it to him. It is uncontroverted, however, that Defendant was not subjected to displays or threats of force.\u201d United States v. Alexander, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101803 (D. Vt. June 30, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cBecause they had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the BPD officers were entitled to exert a minimal restraint on Defendant’s freedom of movement by directing him to roll down his vehicle’s windows in order to investigate further.\u201d \u201cIn the … Continue reading