The stop was prolonged but it was defendant\u2019s own stalling, so Rodriguez wasn\u2019t violated. \u201cThe fact that Thompson and Dwyer did not issue any ticket for the window tinting or the obstructed brake lights is not relevant to the question of whether they had reasonable suspicion to believe those violations occurred.\u201d United States v. Davis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186250 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2019).*<\/p>\n
A search warrant was issued for defendant\u2019s house for evidence of materials for arson. While there was no direct link to defendant and his committing arson, there was circumstantial evidence of his motive, and that\u2019s affidavit\u2019s focus. It was close questions, but a \u201ctotality-of-the-circumstances analysis supported the issuance of the warrant.\u201d Alternatively, the good faith exception was satisfied. People v. Khan<\/a>, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1053 (6th Dist. Oct. 28, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The stop was prolonged but it was defendant\u2019s own stalling, so Rodriguez wasn\u2019t violated. \u201cThe fact that Thompson and Dwyer did not issue any ticket for the window tinting or the obstructed brake lights is not relevant to the question … Continue reading