Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

MT: Defendant's justifications for crossing the fog line do not undermine the objective RS for the stop

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

The officer’s observations of objective conduct at the time of the stop justify the stop. The defendant’s post hoc justifications for crossing the fog line twice do not show there was no reason for the stop. State v. Flynn, 2011 MT 48, 2011 Mont. LEXIS 54 (March 22, 2011): [*P11] A defendant’s subsequent, valid explanation for conduct that objectively appeared suspicious may affect his or her ultimate liability for a charged offense, but it cannot affect the validity of a stop properly based on particularized suspicion. Lincolnshire v. Dispirito, 552 N.E.2d 1238, 1241 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1990); State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 1997). The particularized suspicion inquiry is a fact based assessment of the objective quantity, content and reliability of information “available to the officer...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on March 24, 2011 (boomark / email).