Officer’s testimony that stop was for failing to signal because taillight was smashed out was contradicted by the operator of where the vehicle was towed and the inventory

Motion to suppress is granted because the testimony at the suppression hearing was that the defendant was stopped for failing to signal because the left taillight was smashed out and could not work. When the vehicle was towed, however, it was apparent from disinterested witnesses that the taillight was not smashed at all by the inventory. Therefore, the taillight being the only basis for the stop and the officer not being believed, the motion must be granted. United States v. Arias, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95350 (D. R.I. November 21, 2008).* (Comment: A good friend of mine won in state court the same way: The police said they stopped the defendant for loud music from the car. The inventory of the car showed the radio/stereo didn’t work. Motion to suppress granted.)

The car of a defendant known to be a drug dealer and use a particular car who showed up for a drug sale and was arrested with drugs and the keys on his person could be searched because there was probable cause there were more drugs in the car. United States v. Hall, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95459 (M.D. Pa. November 24, 2008).*

Defense counsel could reasonably have determined that a motion to suppress would have failed, so he was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress. Mediina v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95351 (D. R.I. November 21, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.