Defendant was stopped on a bicycle after he was observed near a computer report to a police car of a crime. He fit the description. After the stop, it was apparent that he was not doing anything wrong, and the suspicion for the stop was dispelled. When defendant dropped his arm to his side, the officer grabbed his arm and put it behind his back because the officer claimed to fear a weapon. Cocaine was found. The seizure was unjustified, and the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Veltri, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97897 (S.D. W.Va. December 2, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Statement in affidavit that vehicle was “Hine’s vehicle” is not a false statement that he owned it because it could mean a way of describing the vehicle. In any event, ownership is immaterial here. United States v. Kelso, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98235 (E.D. Tenn. December 3, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s reliance on the video and audio of his stop was unavailing here. “The Court disagrees with defendant’s argument that there are discrepancies between the officers’ testimony and the content of the tape which prevent the officers’ testimony from being considered credible. To the contrary, the testimony of the officers is largely consistent with the contents of the video\/audiotape.” United States v. McIlwaine, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98236 (E.D. Tenn. December 3, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading