Utah Highway Patrol stopped a tractor-trailer because the driver seemed transfixed and was going too slow. The officer initiated a safety stop to check the driver. When the passenger-owner opened the door, the passenger was described as “scared to death,” exhibiting signs of extreme nervousness. After the stop was completed and no offense was found, the passenger asked if they were free to go, and the officer said no, he was going to ask for consent, which he got. Under the totality, he had reasonable suspicion for the further detention, and 134 kilos of cocaine was validly seized. United States v. Wisniewski, 192 Fed. Appx. 749 (10th Cir. August 16, 2006)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n
The video causes suppression of a car search: The video of the stop produces an annotated timeline by the court. “The Court is presented with an interesting legal paradox, if not a legal anomaly: a defendant suspected of criminal activity because, while being observed by law enforcement, she complied with all traffic laws, is subjected to a probable cause stop. The question becomes whether it was legal. This Court thinks not.” “The Court, however, finds that [officer] Jacks’ testimony regarding the initial traffic stop fails to support his assertion that he had either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that Defendant had violated various Ohio traffic laws.” No reasonable suspicion, no probable cause. United States v. Dukes, 444 F. Supp. 2d 822 (S.D. Ohio August 18, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading