Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs'); North Carolina Court of Appeals does not believe cops can detect nervousness in a car passing by at 65 MPH.
The second-highest court in North Carolina last week ruled police had no business stopping a car because its occupants appeared to be driving while nervous. On April 15, 2011, a pair of Sampson County sheriff's deputies were running a speed trap on Interstate 40 when they noticed a green minivan. Corporal Bass and Pope each testified the vehicle slowed from 73 MPH to 65 MPH in the 70 MPH zone and that the driver and passenger stared straight ahead and "appeared nervous" as they passed.
The officers pulled out and caught up to the minivan. When the patrol car pulled along side, the minivan occupants did not make eye contact. The deputies claimed they saw the vehicle cross the fog line and was driving slowly, so they pulled it over for "unsafe movement." A dashcam video of the incident shows no crossing of the fog line or other evidence of unsafe driving.
Gina Canty, the driver, was given a warning. She also consented to a search that uncovered a revolver and a rifle in a suitcase belonging to the passenger, her ex-husband Nathaniel Canty. A Sampson County Superior Court judge found Nathaniel Canty guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, a three-judge panel began poking holes in the police account of events.
"We find it hard to believe that these officers could tell Ms. Canty and defendant were 'nervous' as they passed by the officers on the highway and as the officers momentarily rode alongside them," Judge Cheri Beasley wrote for the court.
The judges also dismissed the idea that the minivan's slowing after seeing a patrol car running a speed trap.
"The reduction in speed standing alone could be explained a number of different ways, including normal apprehension many people feel when approaching a law enforcement officer," Judge Beasley wrote. "Nervousness, failure to make eye contact with law enforcement, and a relatively small reduction in speed is 'conduct falling within the broad range of what can be described as normal driving behavior... Based on the totality of the circumstances, these officers lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop that resulted in the search and seizure of the weapons in this case."
The judges declared the lawyer in this case should have filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered during the traffic stop. Because the defense counsel was "ineffective," the three-judge panel ordered a new trial in which the motion to suppress would likely succeed.
A copy of the decision is available in a 75k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: North Carolina v. Canty (Court of Appeals, State of North Carolina, 12/18/2012)
(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine
- Not So Merry Christmas Drug Busts
- Utah: Traffic Stop Valid Even When Cop Causes Violation
- Santa Claus Arrested by DPS Capitol Police for Chalking Sidewalk
- San Diego Cops Beat & Pepper Spray Innocent Man With Down Syndrome
- Arizona Police Officer Caught Hiding Evidence In His Garage, Lying About It -- Keeps Job
- Denver Police Officer Found Guilty Of Using Badge To Sexually Assaulting Woman
- Charlotte Cop Kills Dog, Nearly Shoots Pregnant Woman
Apparently, 99% of Mr. Sherlock Holmes' findings would also be ruled "insufficient". If police officers was able to _correctly_ detect the crime just by momentarily looking at the passing vehicle, they only can be commended for their skill.
Why would someone consent to the search of the vehicle, is totally different question. Especially knowing that illegal items will be found. First they allow search, then they scramble to suppress what was found. Wouldn't it be easier to simply say "No, I don't consent"?
they most likely would have searched anyway,based upon what they already considered p,c. to pull the veh. over.you really think these 2 haven,t lied in the past,have lied in the present,and will lie in the future?This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
