The 48 hour rule of (McLaughlin v. Riverside) and the presentment rule (Rule 5), aren\u2019t violated by detention for a violation of supervised release issued on a summons requested by PO. Dismissal\u2019s not the remedy for delay; suppression of evidence that is the fruit of that is. Here there wasn\u2019t anything to be used against the accused. United States v. Serrano, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153590 (N.D. Ga. September 11, 2013).*<\/p>\n
The records checks took time, and the stop was reasonable in length compared to that. Also doing an EPIC records check doesn\u2019t require reasonable suspicion. United States v. Maddox, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153612 (E.D. Tenn. September 11, 2013).* [This was 2011, not 1971. Why does it take 10 minutes for any computer system to do anything, except calculate when the next asteroid comes close to Earth? It should take seconds. I still want an explanation for why anything takes so long and the street cops have no idea. I\u2019ll bet some obfuscating supervisor could explain it, but it strains credulity that anything with a computer takes so long. I personally think that they delay it on purpose so they can have all that free time to talk with the motorist and develop reasonable suspicion.]<\/p>\n
The officer did not time defendant\u2019s arrest so he could inventory the car. The officer was unarmed and in an unmarked car, there was probable cause for the arrest, and he waited for backup. Defendant also consented to a search of the contents of the car after being Mirandized a second time. He was trying to help himself when he consented. Child pornography was found. Defendant was in the Coast Guard at Key West, and he was arrested because he was a Peeping Tom and caught with a camera with voyeuristic pictures. United States v. Witten, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153208 (S.D. Fla. September 13, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading