\u201cBut statements about a deer-in-the-headlights facial expression are commonplace in caselaw assessing whether a police officer has articulable, reasonable suspicion to justify a stop under the Fourth Amendment. There are over a dozen federal appellate decisions, including an opinion from the Eighth Circuit, where this phrase is cited as a factor that supports the constitutionality of a stop or search. See, e.g., United States v. Orth, 873 F.3d 349, 352 (1st Cir. 2017); United States v. Hall, 193 Fed. Appx. 125, 127 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Mays, 643 F.3d 537, 542 (6th Cir. 2011); United States v. Patton, 705 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Hill, 1 Fed. Appx. 606, 608 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Jensen, 41 Fed. Appx. 346, 350 (10th Cir. 2002); United States v. Jones, 562 F.3d 768, 772 (6th Cir. 2008).\u201d In re Short Call Substitute Teaching License in re Yanez, 2022 Minn. App. LEXIS 150 (Nov. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe agree with the district court that Glasgow seized Dixon for Fourth Amendment purposes when he told Dixon and Montgomery to \u2018hold up\u2019 and go back inside the house for questioning because the record is clear they were not free to leave.\u201d There was no probable cause on plaintiff\u2019s version of the facts, so no qualified immunity. Dixon v. City of Birmingham, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 32680 (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers grabbed at defendant in a raid of an \u201cillegal speakeasy,\u201d and he abandoned a gun. It was not yet an arrest. United States v. Burgess, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213300 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cBut statements about a deer-in-the-headlights facial expression are commonplace in caselaw assessing whether a police officer has articulable, reasonable suspicion to justify a stop under the Fourth Amendment. There are over a dozen federal appellate decisions, including an opinion from … Continue reading