N.D.Cal.: Def’s parole status admissible to show why he was subjected to a rigorous search so motives of officers wouldn’t be questioned

Defendant’s being on parole was admissible to explain why he was subjected to a rigorous search because, otherwise, the officers’ motives might be questioned. United States v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105518 (N.D.Cal. August 11, 2015):

The Government has indicated that the responding SFPD officers will testify that they knew Defendant was on parole. Gov.’s Mot. at 2. Without knowledge that Defendant was on parole, and that McAlpine’s home was searched pursuant to Defendant’s parole search condition, the jury would lack necessary context for the search. This lack of context would leave jurors to speculate why such a rigorous search resulted from an erroneous 911 call, inviting skepticism about the officers’ motives. This is especially true here, as Defendant has made clear that he intends to elicit testimony that challenges the constitutional basis for these searches. See Def.’s Mot. at 23. The evidence is therefore necessary not only for the coherence of the Government’s factual narrative about the commission of the crime, but also to prevent undue prejudice against testifying officers. Accordingly, evidence of Defendant’s parole status and search condition are admissible.