M.D.La.: Failure of govt to rebut defense testimony of coerced consent means suppression granted

The defense argued during a suppression motion that the officers coerced the signature of defendant’s wife on the consent form, and put on testimony to that effect which the government never rebutted. After the motion to suppress was granted, the government filed a motion to reconsider, and it does not get “another bite at the apple” to put on witnesses. The government failed in its burden of showing that consent was voluntary the first time, and it should have done it then. United States v. Foster, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4569 (M.D. La. January 8, 2014).

A state judge issued a warrant to track defendant’s cell phone, and it was issued with probable cause. United States v. Rodriguez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3589 (D. Or. January 10, 2014).*

The government shouldn’t have filed its response to the motion to suppress under seal, and it is unsealed. A motion to seal should be filed first. Defendant’s Franks challenge is rejected. The fact the CI would be motivated by money and therefore should not be believed is not a Franks issue. Defendant was a gambler with the money he skimmed in a tax evasion scheme, and failing to include his winnings in the affidavit for search warrant isn’t material or reckless. There was probable cause. United States v. Suliman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4446 (D. Nev. January 13, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.