W.D.N.Y.: Defendant carries burden of going forward on warrantless search, but government has burden of proof

Defendant carries the initial burden of showing that he was seized, and then the burden shifts to the government to show that it was lawful. Defendant’s handcuffing satisfied his burden. United States v. Sanon, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39068 (W.D. N.Y. April 28, 2009) (court also takes judicial notice of distance between places off of www.Mapquest.com):

On a motion to suppress, the defendant bears the initial burden of establishing that a government official acting without a warrant in fact subjected him to a search or seizure. United States v. Arboleda, 633 F.2d 985, 989 (2d Cir. 1980) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 917, 101 S. Ct. 1362, 67 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1981); United States v. Chavis, 48 F.3d 871, 872 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Bayless, 921 F. Supp. 211, 213 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Once the defendant has met this burden, the burden then shifts to the government to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, United States v. Bayless, 921 F. Supp. at 213, that the search or seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Arboleda, 633 F.2d at 989; see also United States v. Bonilla Romero, 836 F.2d 39, 45 (1st Cir. 1987) (“[w]hen it has acted without a warrant, the ultimate burden of persuasion is then upon the government to show that its evidence is not tainted”) (citing Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 183, 89 S. Ct. 961, 22 L. Ed. 2d 176 (1969)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 817, 109 S. Ct. 55, 102 L. Ed. 2d 33 (1988).

Court does not find the officers’ testimony that defendant committed a lane change without signaling within 20 seconds of them seeing him as “too good to be true” so as to be necessarily improbable. Officers are credited; stop is valid. United States v. Campbell, 609 F. Supp. 2d 674 (D. R.I. 2009).*

Because the USMJ cannot determine what, if anything, from execution of a search that the government intends to introduce at trial, the government is ordered to disclose what it intends to use so the defense can move to suppress. United States v. Yost, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38986 (D. Nev. May 7, 2009).*

Traffic stop became too long and exceeded the time necessary for its initial purpose, and questions kept being asked extending the stop. Consent was suppressed. People v. Al Burei, 391 Ill. App. 3d 1, 908 N.E.2d 538, 330 Ill. Dec. 350 (2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.