Did the lower courts depart from the accepted course of judicial proceedings by allowing detention based on dispelled reasonable suspicion?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | Petitioner Jeremy Lillich pleaded guilty, pursuant to a conditional plea agreement, to | _ violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), 21 U.S.C. § 851, 18 U.S.C. § 2 | (Aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine) based on drugs found in his car and on a companion during a Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968). The seizure and detention occurred while he ‘was washing his car in a carwash at approximately 2:00 AM. The avowed “reasonable and articulated suspicion” for the Jerry stop was that the officers suspected petitioner of being in the process of burglarizing the carwash based on the time of night and recent carwash burglaries in the area. When the officers arrived at the scene, they immediately determined that no burglary was in progress or planned. Instead of terminating the encounter when their reasonable suspicion was completely dispelled, however, they extended and expanded the encounter by ordering the production of the identification documents (“LD’s”)of Petitioner and his companion. Based on computer examination of the 1D’s, taken and retained by the officers, it was subsequently determined that the companion had an outstanding warrant. A patdown search yielded a small amount of drugs on the companion’s person which led to the search Petitioner’s car where additional drugs were found. In response to Petitioner’s motion to suppress, the district court held that the officers could rely on the previously dispelled reasonable suspicion of burglary to extend and expand the detention. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 1.) Did the lower courts so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for an exercise of this Court’s power of supervision where they allowed the detention of Petitioner to be extended and expanded based on completely dispelled reasonable suspicion? i : 2.) Where multiple additional errors affected petitioner’s conviction and/or sentence | in the courts below, should this Court exercise it’s supervisory power to vacate his conviction | and sentence? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ii