License Plates from States with Legal Weed Not Enough for Stop and Search

Stopping a car with tags from Colorado was not enough to create reasonable suspicion to stop and search the car for illicit material

Vasquez v. Lewis, 2016 BL 273055, 10th Cir., No. 14-3278, 8/23/16.

   The Tenth Circuit found that the stopping of a car in Kansas with temporary tags from Colorado was not enough to create reasonable suspicion in holding and searching the car. The officer’s stated primary justification for stopping and calling in a drug-sniffing dog was the Colorado tags on the vehicle. The court opined that detaining someone because of their residency is improper, especially taking into consideration that 25 states have legalized medical or recreational marijuana, which cannot support reasonable suspicion.

   The officers cited other factors for the search, including the driver’s nervousness, late night travel on a highway known to be a “drug corridor,” and a blanket covering items in the back seat. The court found, however, this evidence was “too innocuous” to add any weight to the officer’s claim. “Absent a demonstrated extraordinary circumstance, the continued use of state residency as a justification for the fact of or continuation of a stop is impermissible,” stated the court.

   The opinion is of note for its potential of breathing new life in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. In the dissenting opinion, the ruling was called a “close call,” arguing that officers should be given the benefit of the doubt due to the totality of circumstances.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Vasquez_v_Lewis_No_143278_2016_BL_273055_10th_Cir_Aug_23_2016_Cou.

Cop Request Determined To Be 'Command'

A man was effectively seized when he refused to consent to a search and the police "asked" him to exit his legally parked vehicle.

 

Sharp v. United States, 2016 BL 45032, D.C., No. 13-CM-951, 2/18/16

     It was clear that refusal was not a real option for the Devon Sharp. Therefore, when the police "asked" him to exit his car, it was really a command, amounting to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. This case clarifies that such requests will be treated as commands when a reasonable person would, under the circumstances, believe that he had to comply.

     The court stated, quoting Florida v. Bostick, that "in the absence of any sign that a reasonable person in these circumstances would believe the officer was giving him a genuine choice to decline the request and stay in the car, we conclude that the police here 'convey[ed] a message that compliance with their request[] [was] required'."

     The court also noted that nothing that Sharp had been doing gave rise to reasonable suspicion, and did not justify his detention. Merely listening to loud music and appearing to be nervous is not enough.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Sharp_v_United_States_No_13CM951_2016_BL_45032_DC_Feb_18_2016_Cou?1457369927