United States v. Padilla-Esparza

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining nothing between first and second investigative stops dispelled officer’s reasonable suspicion of criminality
• distinguishing Peters where agents quickly aborted first stop based on erroneous belief that they had pulled over wrong truck and reasoning that the border agents’ initial stop of the defendant did not dispel reasonable suspicion
• distinguishing Peters because the officers “did not question Mr. Padilla-Esparza or search his vehicle” during the first stop and had simply “aborted the stop based on . . . [an] erroneous belief that they had pulled over the wrong truck.”
• “[A] second stop violates the Fourth Amendment when the prior stop had dissipated the reasonable suspicion offered to justify the second stop”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).