United States v. Farnell, No. 12-1655 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant moved to suppress evidence, claiming that the stop and search of his vehicle violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion, holding that the officer had, at minimum, a reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity when he turned on his lights and siren and stopped defendant's van; defendant consented to the search of the van; and the officer did not need to obtain consent, or a warrant, when he searched the van for a second time.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. Officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity - fleeing the scene of a bank robbery - when he stopped defendant's van; defendant gave a valid consent to the search of the van; even accepting defendant's argument that the officer's second entry and search of the van was a separate search, the search was valid as the officer had probable cause to conduct the search based on the discovery of a handgun in the van.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.