| Case Law Links
Page |
|
U.S. Tenth Circuit |
|
Appellant Efrain Caro was indicted on one
count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). After an evidentiary hearing, the
district court denied Mr. Caro's motion to suppress evidence obtained
following the stop of his vehicle. Mr. Caro subsequently entered a
conditional plea of guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of
his motion to suppress. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
vacate the denial of Mr. Caro's motion to suppress, and remand for further
proceedings.(*) |
|
Wise V The State of Florida |
|
Whether the Trial Court erred in denying the
defense motion to suppress |
| |
Defendant-Appellant, Jesus Valadez, appeals the denial of
his motion to suppress firearms seized during a traffic stop. Valadez claims
his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when he was detained pending the
completion of a computer check after the stopping officer became aware that
Valadez had not committed
a traffic violation. We reverse the district court's ruling denying the
motion to suppress. |
| |
Maine State Trooper seeks summary judgement as to all claims
against him in this action arising from his stop and search of Plaintiff.
|
| |
Defendant pled guilty to several drug-related offenses after
his motion to suppress evidence was denied. The only issues raised by his
appeal pertain to the denial of his motion to suppress. |
| |
The State of Texas appeals an order granting the Appellee's
motion to suppress evidence. |
| |
White's most recent brush with the law was
in March 2001 in Queensborough during a traffic stop because the window tint
was too dark on his vehicle. White ran from police, but was caught and had
a handgun on him. |
| |
The defendant contends that the stop of his car was unlawful |
| |
Law enforcement officials literally risk their lives each
time they approach occupied vehicles during the course of investigative
traffic stops. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed,"a significant
percentage of murders of police officers occurs when officers are making
traffic stops." United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 234
n.5 (1973). In recognition of the extraordinary dangers to which officers
are exposed during such encounters, the Court has consistently accorded
officers wide latitude to protect their safety, authorizing them, inter
alia, to routinely order both drivers and passengers to exit their
vehicles during such stops and to conduct the equivalent of "frisks"
of automobile interiors whenever they reasonably believe their safety might
be in jeopardy. The advent of tinted automobile windows, however, has
threatened to bring to naught these essential law enforcement protections. |
| |
On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his
motion to suppress the drugs seized by the police because the police had no
"reasonable suspicion" to stop his vehicle. Finding no error, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
|
