The court finds the officer\u2019s testimony credible: \u201cThe court is likewise unpersuaded by the defendants’ arguments that Arwood’s testimony regarding the events of the day and his reason for stopping defendants’ vehicle lacks credibility. Defendants raise a litany of concerns about Arwood’s statements, but offer no evidence to refute his testimony. Instead, the court is left with only bare suppositions, which in this case the court finds insufficient to tip the balance in favor of finding Arwood’s testimony incredible or untrustworthy. Arwood’s testimony at the suppression hearing was not so \u2018exceedingly improbable,\u2019 \u2018unbelievable,\u2019 or \u2018contrary to the laws of nature\u2019 that \u2018no reasonable factfinder could accept it.\u2019 See United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original). Thus, the court accepts as credible Arwood’s testimony and has no reservations relying on it in determining that the initial stop was constitutional.\u201d United States v. Anguiano, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99169 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 24, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98091 (M.D. Ala. June 26, 2017),* reaffirmed, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116789 (M.D. Ala. July 26, 2017).*
\n.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The court finds the officer\u2019s testimony credible: \u201cThe court is likewise unpersuaded by the defendants’ arguments that Arwood’s testimony regarding the events of the day and his reason for stopping defendants’ vehicle lacks credibility. Defendants raise a litany of concerns … Continue reading