{"id":4765,"date":"2011-01-11T16:55:35","date_gmt":"2010-10-12T00:30:26","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-10-11T03:02:48","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4765","title":{"rendered":"IL: Request for consent without RS while paperwork was still in hand unreasonably prolonged stop"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant was lawfully stopped for a traffic offense, and a request for consent was sought before defendant\u2019s paperwork was returned to him. This unlawfully prolonged the stop. [The state argued that <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=7971847631731056703&amp;q=Muehler+v.+Mena&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=402\">Muehler v. Mena<\/a> permitted extending the stop, and the state court to its credit did not fall for it.] <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.il.us\/court\/Opinions\/AppellateCourt\/2010\/1stDistrict\/September\/1050599.pdf\">People v. Burei<\/a>, 2010 Ill. App. LEXIS 1051 (September 30, 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>While the initial seizure of the defendant in this case was lawful, it became unlawful when it was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete its purpose, namely, to issue the appropriate traffic citations. Long after the detention should have ended, Officer Tienstra continued to question the defendant during which time he consented to the search. While contrary to the defendant&#8217;s assertion, the trial court found that he consented to the search, and the court further found and, we agree, that the defendant&#8217;s consent to search was tainted by the unlawful detention.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Defendant Thompson parked his RV in defendant\u2019s driveway and hooked up to power and water. They claimed they didn\u2019t see each other much after that. A search warrant was executed on the house, and Thompson\u2019s RV. Defendant Jevarjian had no standing in Thompson\u2019s RV. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.jud.state.ct.us\/external\/supapp\/Cases\/AROap\/AP124\/124AP523.pdf\">State v. Jevarjian<\/a>, 124 Conn. App. 331, 4 A.3d 1231 (2010); <a href=\"http:\/\/www.jud.state.ct.us\/external\/supapp\/Cases\/AROap\/AP124\/124AP524.pdf\">State v. Thompson<\/a>, 124 Conn. App. 353, 5 A.3d 513 (2010).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4765\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4765","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4765","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4765\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}