D.Ariz.: Police reports were “deceptive and deficient,” but the court believes officer without a credibility determination

Ties go to the runner, or the government. The court finds the officer deceptive and believes him anyway because of a presumption police officers tell the truth [even when their reports are “deceptive and deficient”]. United States v. Jauregui-Barrajas, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19064 (D. Ariz. January 13, 2010)*:

The Court has had difficulty in deciding this case for the following reasons: 1) Agent Bahrychuk’s deceptive and deficient case report; and 2) A lack of reports from any other agents because “it was a routine knock and talk”, which seems to excuse good law enforcement work.

At the heart of the issue is whether to believe Agent Bahrychuk or the Defendant. This time, the Court finds in favor of Agent Bahrychuk because: 1) He could have, and would have, obtained a warrant; and 2) The Court and our legal community have to accept our adversarial system and the honesty of those who have sworn to tell the truth and defend the Constitution.

Is the court holding its nose as it issues this ruling? End justified the means?

It was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the landlord had the authority to invite him into defendant’s backyard. The landlord discovered drugs outside during routine maintenance and called the police. Defendant then consented to a search of the interior. United States v. Howe, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19559 (E.D. Va. March 4, 2010)* [But landlords can’t consent to a search of the rented property. Here they can as to the curtilage.]

Defendant was an overnight guest in a mobile home that he was using as a hideout. That was sufficient to give him standing. The police got good reason to know he was there, and they entered with an arrest warrant. Defendant was handcuffed and officers searched under the couch cushion where he was standing looking for a weapon, which they found. This was a valid search incident. Although handcuffed, it was not inconceivable that he could have reached the weapon. Gant applies only to vehicle search incident. United States v. Bowman, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19236 (M.D. Ala. February 5, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.