OH8: Video belied testimony about stop; suppression should have been granted

The trooper testified that defendant swerved within lanes, but it was not supported by the video and defendant wasn’t even cited for that. Thus, the motion to suppress should have been granted. City of Cleveland v. Shevchenko, 2016-Ohio-5711, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 3573 (8th Dist. Sept. 8, 2016).*

On the totality, there was reasonable suspicion for an immigration stop: “At the suppression hearing, the district court credited testimony from Border Patrol agents regarding the observations that led them to initiate the encounter with Nava-Maytorel. Specifically, the agents testified that Nava-Maytorel abruptly changed lanes upon passing a marked Border Patrol vehicle, and then pulled into a rest stop that the agents believed was a common staging area for smugglers. The agents further testified that Nava-Maytorel’s passenger appeared inordinately concerned about the presence of Border Patrol at the rest stop, and that, after parking and exiting his vehicle, Nava-Maytorel ‘flashed’ his immigration papers and stretched in a manner that appeared exaggerated. Finally, the agents testified that a records check indicated that Nava-Maytorel’s vehicle had crossed over from Mexico earlier that day.” United States v. Nava-Maytorel, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16441 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Burden of proof, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.