Defendant\u2019s alleged consent was recorded by “COPS” but later erased by the production company. He\u2019s not entitled to suppression on that ground. The court credits the officer\u2019s testimony on defendant\u2019s consent and finds it voluntary. United States v. Brayfield, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99046 (W.D. Mo. June 25, 2013), adopted 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98179 (W.D. Mo. July 15, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Finally, defendant has provided the Court with no legal authority to support his argument that suppression is warranted based on the failure of law enforcement to secure a copy of the videotape before it was erased by the production company. In United States v. Dillard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141038, 2010 WL 5764682, *10 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2010), adopted by 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11374, 2011 WL 463034 (D. Nev. Feb. 3, 2011), the court was presented with a similar argument, that the police failed to take steps to preserve all the COPS video that was recorded during the incident. The Dillard court found that because the defendant failed to present any evidence that the government or the police willfully failed to preserve the evidence, suppression was not warranted. Id. at *11. Defendant Brayfield has, likewise, presented no evidence that the government or the police willfully failed to preserve the evidence. Thus, suppression is not warranted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Back to blog<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading