\u201cThe Court concludes that the protective sweep exception applies. When the officers first attempted to pull Canada over, Canada took an abnormal amount of time to stop his vehicle, despite a clear roadway with no obstructions. The officers testified that in their training and experience, a slow stop can indicate that the driver is attempting to retrieve or conceal a weapon or other contraband. Then, upon the officers’ approach of the vehicle, Officer Jensen observed that Canada had his shoulders pinned up against the back of his seat with his hips lifted off the seat and was reaching his right arm behind his seat. Officer Jensen immediately became concerned that Canada was attempting to conceal or reach for a weapon. The Court concludes that Canada’s slow stop combined with his furtive gesture to the area beneath his seat as the officers approached gave rise to the reasonable, articulable suspicion that Canada had access to weapon and may have posed a danger to the officers.\u201d United States v. Canada, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105076 (D.Kan. June 4, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s lack of particularity argument wasn\u2019t made to the district court, and it\u2019s waived. His probable cause challenge fails because there is probable cause on the totality. His isolation of facts doesn\u2019t apply the totality standard. Kindle v. State<\/a>, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 4403 (Tex. App. \u2013 Dallas June 4, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cThe Court concludes that the protective sweep exception applies. When the officers first attempted to pull Canada over, Canada took an abnormal amount of time to stop his vehicle, despite a clear roadway with no obstructions. The officers testified that … Continue reading