State v. Barlow

h PETERS, J.,

dissenting.

I must respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in failing to grant the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress the marijuana seized in the January 14, 2000 search. In my opinion, the majority’s conclusion is based, not on the evidence presented, but on the trial court’s interpretation of Deputy Pittman’s thought process. Simply stated, although the state might well have been able to produce evidence to establish the necessary reasonable suspicion for Deputy Pittman’s actions, it failed to do so, and we cannot supply that…