The stop was for investigation of prostitution, and the driver fled. \u201cThe record reflects that Carter intended to place Williams in his cruiser for safety reasons and for investigating suspected prostitution\u2014and not merely for checking Williams’s license or for the officer’s own convenience. Carter was denied the opportunity to do so when Williams fled. In other words, Williams’s flight terminated the traffic stop before it was ever extended, and Carter’s intentions were preempted when Carter ran. \u2026 Regardless of whether Carter intended to issue a citation or a warning, or neither, however, the stop was not prolonged before Williams fled. Video of the traffic stop supports this conclusion.\u201d State v. Williams, 2026-Ohio-860 (2d Dist. Mar. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The encounter was not a stop and it was consensual. The officer parked near defendant but didn\u2019t block him. The USMJ\u2019s conclusion on disputed facts must govern. United States v. Moore, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 7494 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search of defendant\u2019s bag after he was in a holding cell on a probation arrest was not justifiable as a search incident. [No mention of inventory; therefore, this will not go in the book supplement.] People v. Allen, 2026 NY Slip Op 50289(U) (Kings Co. Mar. 9, 2026) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The stop was for investigation of prostitution, and the driver fled. \u201cThe record reflects that Carter intended to place Williams in his cruiser for safety reasons and for investigating suspected prostitution\u2014and not merely for checking Williams’s license or for the … Continue reading