Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:15:10 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-4957919@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.130.116.53; envelope-from=hwasti@lm50.com
From: Hamid Wasti <hwasti@lm50.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: beware, you may be searched!
References: <list-4956846@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4956846@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sky2high@aol.com wrote:
> ***Caveat*** is more interesting. 
>
> Reasonable detention is open to interpretation.  It has been held that 
> detaining someone stopped for a traffic violation until drug dogs 
> could be obtained was not reasonable
>
I believe the reason the detention was found to be unreasonable in the 
particular case you are referring to was because of the length of 
detention, NOT specifically because the detention was to obtain a drug 
dog. I do not believe there is a specific hard number where xx:00 
minutes is OK and xx:01 is unreasonable or a list of approved and 
disapproved reasons.  It is up to the "totality of the circumstances," 
which unfortunately include the personal biases of the judge as well as 
the judge's assessment of the biases of the appeals court that will be 
reviewing the decision.

Regards,

Hamid