E.D.N.Y.: Officer’s inability to remember minutia of search two years ago doesn’t make him unbelievable; opposite would more likely be true

The officers’ testimony is credited, and the defense cross didn’t make it better. “The inconsistencies, which in the Court’s view, were de minimis, were sought to be established by photographs of isolated portions of the living room and of Smith’s bedroom which were of questionable relevance. Frequently overlooked in a critical evaluation of such cross examination as they purport to undermine the credibility of a witness, is that the minutiae they inquire about occurred, as they did in this case, almost two years ago and inconsistencies are inevitable. Some might regard a precise minute by minute, inch by inch recall after such a time lapse with suspicion.” United States v. Smith, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72750 (E.D.N.Y. June 3, 2016).*

A traffic offense justified defendant’s stop, and the officer smelled marijuana as he approached it. The officer “carefully looked” through defendant’s wallet and found gift cards and credit cards in the name of others. He was not required to accept defendant’s explanations at face value given that defendant lied to him twice already. There was probable cause for arrest for identity theft. United States v. Cassiberry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70349 (N.D.Ind. May 31, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.