Opinion ID: 1298434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Lee's Divergent Stories

Text: The State argues that the divergent stories as to who[m][Lee] was meeting and who her boyfriend was is another appropriate factor for consideration within the totality of the circumstances supporting the trial court's determination of reasonable suspicion. Brief for appellee at 13. Specifically, the State points to the testimony of Mulbery to the effect that Lee's story turned around the second time Lee was asked her reasons for being in an unauthorized location in the recreation area. According to Mulbery, the first time Lee was asked why she was in the recreation area, her response was that she was there to meet her boyfriend, Talbott. The second time Lee was asked, however, she told Mulbery she was there to meet her boyfriend, Johnson, and that Talbott was in fact her brother. An individual's inconsistent explanation of the reason for being at a particular location is a factor which may be considered within the totality of the circumstances in evaluating the existence of reasonable suspicion. See U.S. v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356 (8th Cir.1995) (indicating that inconsistent answers relating to purpose of trip may enable trooper to expand scope of stop). As such, we shall consider this circumstance in our ultimate determination of reasonable suspicion.