holding remand unnecessary and that this court will uphold a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress despite lack of factual findings if, on review of the record, it finds that “any reasonable view of the evidence” supports the district court’s decision
How later courts described this case
- holding remand unnecessary and that this court will uphold a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress despite lack of factual findings if, on review of the record, it finds that “any reasonable view of the evidence” supports the district court’s decision
- holding the “reasonable investigation” of a traffic stop “includes asking for the driver’s license and registration, requesting that the driver sit in the patrol car, and asking the driver about his destination and purpose”
- stating that any traffic violation, “however minor,” provides probable cause for a stop, and, if a traffic violation has occurred, an officer’s underlying motivations will not render the stop pretextual
- holding that remand is unnecessary where the district court states its legal basis for denying the motion to suppress on the record and a reasonable view of the evidence supports its decision
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I join part II of Judge McMillian’s dissenting opinion. His eloquent and forceful discussion of the place of the Fourth Amend *925 ment in our Constitution convinces me that this judgment should be reversed.