Court Opinion

ID: 9597924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:03:59.137537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:39.896602
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(dissenting):
Although the legal analysis applicable to this case is ably set out in the majority’s opinion, I cannot agree with their ultimate conclusion that the arresting officer had an articulable suspicion that the automobile had been stolen, much less that defendant had in any way participated in the theft.
The only facts relied on by the officer were that the driver’s name was not the name of the registered owner and the driver was not able to locate the registration certificate. These facts are just as consistent with the more likely scenario that the driver borrowed the car from its rightful owner. Absent more — and this is all the officer pointed to — there was simply no articulable suspicion, as a matter of law, that the car had been stolen.
I would accordingly reverse.