UT: Lack of a bodycam doesn’t make officer not believable

The lack of a bodycam video of the search doesn’t mean the officer can’t be believed. On the totality, there was probable cause. The trial court found the officer credible, and that gets deference on appeal. The state statute on an adverse jury instruction on lack of a body camera has no application to suppression hearings. State v. Saunders, 2026 UT App 161, 2026 Utah App. LEXIS 219 (Oct. 22, 2026) (§ 42.05).

The minor mistakes in the affidavit weren’t material to the probable cause finding. The cell phone here was given to another two months before it was seized, so defendant abandoned it. United States v. King, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242810 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2026).*

The statement that defendant made money of his legal marijuana business was false by Franks standards because part of it was known to be illegitimate. Also, the warrants were not overbroad. United States v. Bregman, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242904 (D. Neb. Oct. 23, 2026).* [Note: In defendant’s interrogation, he was asked whether he paid the fee directly to the co-defendant’s lawyer.]

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Body cameras, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.