S.D.Ohio: Def was entitled to discovery of body camera footage of how a search was conducted

Defendant was entitled to discovery of body camera footage of how a search was conducted. United States v. Moore, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119486 (S.D. Ohio July 2, 2024).

The fact a Sixth Circuit judge dissented on a similar issue doesn’t show that defendant’s IAC issue has merit. Moralez v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119022 (W.D. Ky. July 8, 2024).*

Moore’s argument is that Officer Brandon Connley’s affidavit in support of his request for that warrant could not support a probable cause finding because it did not mention the other suspect police also had been surveilling as part of its investigation into Moore’s alleged drug trafficking activities. But as explained below, this challenge fails on two independent grounds: (1) Moore has forfeited this argument because his motion for reconsideration relies on evidence he employed during his cross-examination of Officer Connley at the suppression hearing, rather than newly discovered evidence; and (2) the argument lacks merit because the mere fact that police surveilled another potential suspect did not prevent them from demonstrating probable cause to search the 3100 Vienna Woods residence.” United States v. Moore, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119140 (S.D. Ohio July 8, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Body cameras, Discovery, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.