From: Quinlan Law Enforcement eNews Alert, January 8, 2009.
Encounter between officer and defendant in parking lot of convenience store was consensual
“An encounter between a police officer and a defendant, as the defendant was walking to his car at a convenience store, in which the officer asked the defendant if he had anything was illegal, was consensual thus did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. A police car had parked 12 feet behind the defendant’s car. The four officers on the scene were uniformed and the officer did not advise the defendant that he was free to leave. However, the encounter occurred in view of other patrons, and the officer did not touch the defendant until after he stated that he had a gun. Furthermore, only one of the officers approached the defendant, and the officer did not use an antagonistic tone.”
Citation: U.S. v. Thompson, 546 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2008)
——————————————————————————–
Traffic stop of car with no license plates and no temporary permit in rear window was reasonable under Fourth Amendment
“An officer acted reasonably in conducting an investigatory stop of a car with no license plates and no temporary operating permit in the rear window, even if there was a temporary permit displayed in the front window. The officer was not required to perform the potentially dangerous maneuver of driving alongside and in front of the car to inspect the other windows, in order to have reasonable suspicion sufficient for a stop. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court distinguished cases in which officers saw temporary permits on defendants’ vehicles before they conducted stops, and thus lacked reasonable suspicion of a licensing violation.”
Citation: In re Raymond C., 45 Cal. 4th 303, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 110, 196 P.3d 810 (2008)
——————————————————————————–
Officer’s stop of truck with temporary permit but no license plates was not reasonable
“An officer does not develop the reasonable suspicion necessary to support an investigatory stop of a vehicle merely by noting that the vehicle displays a temporary operating permit in lieu of license plates, and being aware that temporary operating permits are often forged or otherwise invalid. In this case, the officer gave no indication at the suppression hearing that the vehicle he stopped was an older model that presumably would have been issued plates in the past. But even if such evidence had been presented, it would not have supported the stop, since the temporary permit could have been issued because the plates were lost or damaged.”
Citation: People v. Hernandez, 45 Cal. 4th 295, 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d 105, 196 P.3d 806 (2008)
——————————————————————————–
Vehicle stop was not within community caretaking exception requirement to warrant
“Following authority in several other states, the Court of Appeal decided that the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement could justify vehicle stops under some circumstances. The issue was one of first impression in the state. However, the stop of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger was not sufficiently reasonable to come within the exception. Although the defendant had walked unsteadily to the vehicle and was sweating, he could obtain assistance from the driver if any was necessary, and it would have been speculative to conclude that the defendant was suffering from a drug overdose.”
Citation: People v. Madrid, 168 Cal. App. 4th 1050, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 900 (1st Dist. 2008)
——————————————————————————–
Defendant’s conduct in resisting arrest and attempting to flee dissipated taint from his unlawful seizure, such that exclusionary rule did not apply
“A defendant’s conduct in resisting arrest and attempting to flee following his illegal detention, based on an officer’s mistake of law in believing that the defendant’s conduct in walking in the middle of the road in a business district was unlawful, dissipated the taint from the unlawful seizure. Thus the exclusionary rule did not apply and the officers’ observations of resistance were not subject to suppression in a prosecution for resisting an executive officer.”
Citation: People v. Cox, 168 Cal. App. 4th 702, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716 (3d Dist. 2008), review filed, (Dec. 23, 2008)
——————————————————————————–
Detention of defendant for nine minutes after passenger’s arrest, while police waited for drug sniffing dog, did not violate the Fourth Amendment
“The detention of defendant and the driver of vehicle for nine minutes after a second passenger’s arrest, while police officers waited for a drug sniffing dog to arrive at the scene, did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The initial traffic stop turned into a Terry investigative stop after the second passenger was arrested on an outstanding warrant based on a drug charge.”
Citation: Henderson v. State, 2008 WL 5007215 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008)
——————————————————————————–
Untruthful response must involve investigation of federal “law or regulation” to violate federal regulation
“A national park ranger who made a Terry stop in a federal enclave for purpose of assisting city police in their investigation of a gasoline drive-off theft was not investigating a violation of a federal “law or regulation,” and thus the untruthful answer given by defendant in response to ranger’s question of whether he was the driver who had left a filling station without paying did not violate a federal regulation prohibiting the provision of false information “to an authorized person investigating an accident or violation of law or regulation.” The issue was one of first impression.”
Citation: U.S. v. Cheek, 2008 WL 4943132 (D. Ariz. 2008)