Cited by

This court has concluded that, “While an officer’s perception of an individual’s nervousness may contribute to an officer’s reasonable suspicion, nervousness is not sufficient by itself and must be coupled with other particularized and objective facts.” see also Garding, d at 705 (“In general, we have expressed reluctance to rely on evasive or nervous behavior as 14 evidence to support a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”).

During a traffic stop, an officer’s questioning generally “must be limited to the purpose of the stop.”

Instead, -81 (Minn. App. 2003), he argues that the deputy’s initial questioning about medication was not limited in scope or duration to the original purpose of the stop.

While conducting a vehicle stop, “an officer’s questions must be limited to the purpose of the stop.” (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 498-500 (1983)).

See Burbach, d at 490-91; 137 (Minn. 2002); cf. Smith, d at 352-54.

d 278, 282 (Minn. App. 2003) (“While an officer’s perception of an individual’s nervousness may contribute to an officer ’s reasonable suspicion, nervousness is not sufficient by itself and must be coupled with other particularized and objective facts.

“ During a traffic stop, an officer’s questions must be limited to the purpose of the stop.”

The district court correctly noted that “[n]ervousness alone is not an objective fact, but a subjective assessment derived from the officer’s perceptions.”

this court determined that “an officer’s perception of an individual’s nervousness may contribute to an officer’s reasonable suspicion, [but] nervousness is not sufficient by itself and must be couple d with other particularized and objective facts.” (Emphasis 10 added).

See United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 9 10, 915 (8th Cir. 1994) ; .

During any traffic stop, an officer may “ask for the driver’s license and registration and ask the driver about his destination and reason for the trip.”

Nervousness is “a subjective assessment derived from the officer’s perceptions” and generally “is not sufficient by itself and must be coupled with other particularized and objective facts.” (citations omitted).

State v. Syhavong , d 278, 282 (Minn. App. 2003).

See State v. Syhavong , 6 (holding that nervousness “must be coupled with other particularized and objective facts” to justify a pat -search).

9 -90 (Minn. 2005) (concluding that a tip unsupported by evidence of reliability and a speeding violation, combined with driver’s nervousness, were insufficient to support a reasonable, articulable suspicion of illegal drug activity); (“While an officer’s perception of an individual’s nervousness may contribute to an officer’s reasonable suspicion, nervousness is not sufficient by itself and must be coupled with other particularized and objective facts.”); Wiegand, d at 137 (concluding that dog

see also Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1615 (2015).

at 216 ; (noting that nervousness is not sufficient “by itself’ to provide reasonable suspicion).