M.D.Ala.: Supposition isn’t enough to discredit officer’s testimony about the stop

The court finds the officer’s testimony credible: “The court is likewise unpersuaded by the defendants’ arguments that Arwood’s testimony regarding the events of the day and his reason for stopping defendants’ vehicle lacks credibility. Defendants raise a litany of concerns about Arwood’s statements, but offer no evidence to refute his testimony. Instead, the court is left with only bare suppositions, which in this case the court finds insufficient to tip the balance in favor of finding Arwood’s testimony incredible or untrustworthy. Arwood’s testimony at the suppression hearing was not so ‘exceedingly improbable,’ ‘unbelievable,’ or ‘contrary to the laws of nature’ that ‘no reasonable factfinder could accept it.’ See United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original). Thus, the court accepts as credible Arwood’s testimony and has no reservations relying on it in determining that the initial stop was constitutional.” United States v. Anguiano, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99169 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 24, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98091 (M.D. Ala. June 26, 2017).*

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

Comments are closed.