Officers approached defendant sitting in his Jeep at 14th & U in D.C., looking down into his lap. It turned out he was looking at his phone. The police order to get out of the car was without reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing. Defendant had brass knuckles on him because he managed two restaurants in the area. The evidence was in dispute whether he admitted he had them or the officer just frisked him. It doesn’t matter: no reasonable suspicion. Sharp v. United States, 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 40 (Feb. 18, 2016).
There was no reasonable suspicion to extend defendant’s stop because of who he allegedly was and because of what he was supposedly doing, and the trial court’s findings do not support any inference of reasonable suspicion on either. State v. Alexander, 2016 VT 19, 2016 Vt. LEXIS 19 (Feb. 12, 2016).*
Reasonable suspicion? We’re way beyond these constitutional interpretations, but I guess they have to be discussed so the idiots keep believing they’re still living in America.
If a cop approached him for any reason, he’s lucky to be alive.
“Defendant had brass knuckles on him because he managed two restaurants in the area.”
wow… brass knuckles? Seriously? Good thing it wasn’t a Pop Tart ‘gun’.
The pig might’ve had a coronary.