\u201cThe officers did not search the vehicle until after any permissible justification to search had dissipated. The officers had decided to not even write Defendant a traffic ticket. Yet, the officers continued his detention \u2014 seized him, handcuffed him, and placed him in a police car on a hunch \u2014 lacking reasonable suspicion.\u201d \u201cThe Court further finds, after listening to the recording carefully, with headphones, on ten occasions, that there is no evidence that the officers obtained a second or third consent during their subsequent interaction with Defendant. To the extent that the officers testified at the hearing, in response to leading questions that Defendant reaffirmed consent, there is no support for that in the recording, and the Court, relying on the audio\/video, does not credit that testimony.\u201d United States v. Mahone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47873 (E.D.Mich. April 8, 2016).<\/p>\n
The video of defendant\u2019s stop shows that the officer never threatened to get a warrant when he asked for consent, so even if defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the consent on that and other proffered grounds, it would have been denied. No IAC. United States v. Sanchez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47515 (D.Kan April 6, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe officers did not search the vehicle until after any permissible justification to search had dissipated. The officers had decided to not even write Defendant a traffic ticket. Yet, the officers continued his detention \u2014 seized him, handcuffed him, and … Continue reading