Defendant was an accused bootlegger who knew he was being tailed and he wrecked his car and ran away. The court doesn\u2019t find this to be unequivocally an abandonment because he knew he was being followed but not necessarily by the police. The court on its own raises inevitable discovery and finds that the defendant had an opportunity to make enough of a record on it. The court finds it valid as an inventory. United States v. Brooks, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210921 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018).*<\/p>\n
\u201cWe thus conclude, applying Jimenez and Miller, that the officer’s question was reasonably related to a lawful criminal investigation and, therefore, did not unlawfully extend the stop. In so holding, we are especially mindful, as was the Supreme Court in Miller, that the \u2018reasonable relationship\u2019 test \u2018\u201cis not a demanding one.\u201d\u2019\u201d State v. Toll<\/a>, 295 Ore. App. 277, 2018 Ore. App. LEXIS 1574 (Dec. 14, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was an accused bootlegger who knew he was being tailed and he wrecked his car and ran away. The court doesn\u2019t find this to be unequivocally an abandonment because he knew he was being followed but not necessarily by … Continue reading