IA: Video didn’t support officer’s version of stop; no RS and suppressed

The officer testified that defendant crossed the centerline of a gravel road and came at him, and that was the basis of the stop. “Officer Van Gundy stated he ‘slowed down and pulled to the right’ because he was afraid Ripperger ‘was going to hit [him] head-on.’ However, the video from the officer’s patrol car does not corroborate his testimony. The officer neither reduced his speed nor pulled his vehicle to the right before turning on the lights in his patrol car.” State v. Ripperger, 2016 Iowa App. LEXIS 15 (Jan. 13, 2016).

The government’s motion for defendant’s palm prints is granted: it neither offends the Fourth nor Fifth Amendment. United States v. Sanudo-Duarte, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3688 (D.Ariz. Jan. 12, 2016).

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.