OH9: Grant of motion to suppress off bodycam video reversed, officer’s testimony not inconsistent

The granting of the motion to suppress is reversed as not based on competent or credible evidence. The bodycam doesn’t fully support the officer’s testimony there were furtive movements before he got up to the driver’s window, but the bodycam image is partly obscured by reflected light. [Actually, the bodycam doesn’t make the officer’s testimony false.] State v. Leneo, 2025-Ohio-2582 (9th Dist. July 23, 2025).*

Failure to investigate a legally meritless search and seizure claim isn’t ineffective assistance of counsel. People v. Miller, 2025 Mich. App. LEXIS 5735 (July 18, 2025).*

Defendant kind of got a Franks hearing within a motion to suppress hearing, and there’s no substantial preliminary showing of knowing or reckless falsity. Denied. United States v. Stewart, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138688 (E.D. Mo. July 21, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.