M.D.Pa.: Def’s version in pro se motion to suppress used against him in third on credibility

Defendant files three motions to suppress. The first one was pro se and never mentioned that his stop was pretextual, that the headlights were actually on, and the stop was without reasonable suspicion. A later motion to suppress challenged the basis for the stop. At the hearing, defendant was questioned about the failure to challenge the basis for the stop the first time as a credibility attack, and it worked: The court finds defendant lacked crediblity on his version of the stop. Defendant’s patdown during the stop was justified. “Here, I find that Mr. Greene’s suspicious movement inside the vehicle, the nature of the neighborhood, and the Officer’s detection of a strong odor of illegal drugs were sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down.” United States v. Greene, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75854 (M.D. Pa. May 18, 2017).

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

Comments are closed.