The government realized when they called defendant\u2019s estranged wife near the end of the suppression hearing about the alleged consent search of their house that “As the suppression hearing unfolded over the course of two days, the credibility of certain law enforcement witnesses was called into serious question” about the search of the house. They regrouped, asked to reopen the proof, and retracted the testimony they found false. The court makes the credibility determination that all the material government witnesses aren\u2019t believable and suppresses the consent search. Without the consent search, the search warrant fails, too. United States v. Fernandes, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17933 (N.D.Okla. Feb. 12, 2016). <\/p>\n
Pouring out a baggie of drugs in a car during a traffic stop and before the officer got to the window was sufficient evidence of tampering with evidence. It wasn\u2019t a drug stop, but it\u2019s still an official investigation. Lemarr v. State<\/a>, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1766 (Tex.App. \u2013 Amarillo Feb. 18, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The government realized when they called defendant\u2019s estranged wife near the end of the suppression hearing about the alleged consent search of their house that “As the suppression hearing unfolded over the course of two days, the credibility of certain … Continue reading