Defendants\u2019 vehicle looked like one wanted in a recent bank robbery, and officers sped up to get closer, and the vehicle was speeding through a residential area. Aside from speeding, officers had reasonable suspicion they were involved in the bank robbery. The alert for the vehicle didn\u2019t include an LPN, but that was required based on what they knew. \u201cAlthough it is true that the ‘wanted’ in Smith contained a license plate number, nothing in that case indicates that a license plate number must invariably be included in an alert or bulletin before officers can justifiably rely on such an alert. In fact, the Eighth Circuit has found that officers had reasonable suspicion in cases where the bulletin or alert at issue contained a level of specificity similar to that contained in the Alert in this case.\u201d United States v. Garmon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87768 (D. Minn. May 25, 2018), adopting 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88623 (D. Minn. Apr. 8, 2018).<\/p>\n
Driving 69 in a 70 mph zone in the middle lane of the Ohio Turnpike is not an offense, and the officer acted unreasonably in stopping defendants for that. A sign said slower vehicles use right two lanes, and defendants actually passed cars going 69. When the officer pulled behind them they slowed to 66. (The court also questions the officers seeing cannabis flakes on the floorboard since it\u2019s not mentioned on the video.) The stop and the search of the car are suppressed. State v. Clark<\/a>, 2018-Ohio-2029, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 2202 (6th Dist. May 25, 2018). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendants\u2019 vehicle looked like one wanted in a recent bank robbery, and officers sped up to get closer, and the vehicle was speeding through a residential area. Aside from speeding, officers had reasonable suspicion they were involved in the bank … Continue reading