“Second, Harris asserts that the inconsistencies between Gilbert’s and Wilbanks’s testimony undercut the district court’s credibility finding. This is a steep hurdle for Harris because the district court is ‘in the best position to judge credibility’ and we will not disturb its factual findings when it plausibly resolves discrepancies in the testimony. United States v. Bradshaw, 102 F.3d 204, 210 (6th Cir. 1996). Admittedly, there are several inconsistencies in the testimony.” Still, the district court is the determiner of credibility of witnesses in consent claims. United States v. Harris, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27901 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2019).
The bail bond company argues that a Fourth Amendment waiver in a bail bond was constitutionally void, and that renders the bond void. The Fourth Amendment waiver issue is unresolved in California, but that has nothing to do with the bondsman’s liability. People v. Fin. Cas. & Sur., 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 876 (4th Dist. Sept. 17, 2019).*