The First Circuit decided a case that could be useful authority where police wrongly believe they have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop. After checking their in-car computer, police thought they had r/s to stop the driver. After stop, they discovered the driver and passenger loaded with gun and drugs. But on rechecking, police realized they had misread the computer. COA upheld denial of mtn to suppress. http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/05-2077-01A.pdf
Blimey John, not to mince words, but that is what we do, eh? You are right -- this IS a useful opinion -- because it finds that the officers possessed a reasonable suspicion even though their belief was based upon a mistaken fact. Stops based upon a mistake of law shouldn't be upheld, but ones arising out of a mistake of fact are constitutional as long as the mistake was objectively reasonable. Here, the officers relied upon their MDT screen which actually showed the D's license was suspended -- kudos to the prosecutors who brought in the IT expert to explain the inaccurate MDT readout. And, whether or not the D was actually driving with a suspended license, what mattered was that the officers REASONABLY BELIEVED he was doing this. This case reminds me of Brown v. State, 986 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Tex.App. � Dallas 1999, no pet.) (holding NCIC computer information furnished officers on stolen car was reasonably trustworthy; the officers had probable cause to arrest based on this information, even though it later proved erroneous).
Posts: 62 | Location: Fort Worth, TX | Registered: November 02, 2001
The computer in an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) must begin each transaction with a default assumption against dispensing money. Cash should only be given after the PIN code and sufficient funds are verified. This should be the default position regardless of the success or failure of previous transactions.
I wonder if the MDT computer software's default position is innocence or guilt� and should it even matter?
