\u201cDefendant objects to the magistrate judge’s probable cause determination asserting that \u2018defendant believes\u2019 that where a police car is equipped with video recording equipment the officer should be required to use it and that his testimony alone should not be sufficient to support a probable cause determination. Defendant cites no authority in support of his belief and it is not the law.\u201d United States v. Derrick, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82287 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2018).<\/p>\n
Implied consent law was followed, and defendant\u2019s consent was valid. Inevitable discovery would also apply. Finally, the California truth-in-evidence provision would not permit exclusion of evidence here for this statutory violation. People v. Vannesse<\/a>, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 447 (2d Dist. May 16, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cDefendant objects to the magistrate judge’s probable cause determination asserting that \u2018defendant believes\u2019 that where a police car is equipped with video recording equipment the officer should be required to use it and that his testimony alone should not be … Continue reading