D.Ariz.: Analyzing officer’s testimony in detail on basis for stop leads to conclusion he isn’t believable; officer prone to “stray from the facts”; suppression granted

The arresting officer in this case just is not believable that he did not stop the defendant for pretextual reasons. United States v. Padilla, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45708 (D. Ariz. March 3, 2010)*:

The Government need only show one traffic violation for a legitimate pretextual stop. As discussed above, there was no license plate light violation, speed violation, crossing the fog line violation or failure to pull over in response to the emergency lights. That Defendant Padilla in fact violated the seatbelt requirement is undisputed. What is disputed is whether Officer Henry knew about the violation before or after the stop. The timing of his knowledge rests solely on Officer Henry’s credibility.

As the investigating officer in this case, Officer Henry has an interest in the outcome of the case. As discussed in detail above, in many instances, Officer Henry’s testimony concerning the license plate light, speeding, crossing the fog line and failure to pull over was not credible and not consistent with his prior written and verbal statements and not consistent with the evidence. On those four violations, Officer Henry simply was not credible.

When Officer Henry testifies about the seatbelt, his credibility does not start with a clean slate. Rather, Officer Henry’s willingness to stray from the facts on these related issues leads to the conclusion that he would be similarly unconstrained by the actual facts when testifying about the seatbelt. This Court finds that Officer Henry’s testimony was not credible. As such, the Government has not satisfied its burden of proof that Officer Henry observed the seatbelt violation, the silhouette of the belt hanging vertically, prior to stopping the vehicle driven by Defendant Padilla.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant the motion to suppress evidence based on lack of reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. Officer Henry did not have reasonable suspicion that any criminal activity was afoot when he stopped the Defendants’ vehicle. Furthermore, Officer Henry’s assertions that he stopped the Defendants’ vehicle for independent traffic violations are not credible and are not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.