Return of paperwork does not mean a motorist is free to leave

Stop was not consensual because a reasonable defendant would not have felt free to leave. “Despite the return of documents, the court cannot conclude that Defendant would have felt free to leave. Nixon testified that he was not actually going to let Defendant go because of the suspicions he and Jensen had regarding illegal activity.” Nevertheless, there was reasonable suspicion. United States v. Ferro, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78670 (D. Utah October 23, 2007). (Comment: Finally, a court that is capable of seeing the truth of a traffic stop that a motorist is not free to leave just because the paperwork has been returned.)

Although appellant succeeded in suppressing the evidence in his criminal case, Logan v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 168, 622 S.E.2d 771 (2005) (en banc), that same evidence could be used to revoke his previous probation because the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation proceedings. Logan v. Commonwealth, 2007 Va. App. LEXIS 393 (October 23, 2007).

There is no Franks violation where the informant was corroborated by listening to his telephone calls with the defendant. United States v. Mikulewicz, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78801 (W.D. Wis. October 19, 2007):

Agent Ohm could have included in his warrant application every single impeaching fact–true or not–proffered by Mikulewicz against Colegrove and it would have not affected the court’s probable cause determination a whit. So what if Colegrove were a meth addict who stole $ 1300 of her Sugar Daddy’s cash to pay for drugs? The police possessed and had listened to a recording of Colegrove’s phone calls with third parties intercepted by Mikulewicz. This is the evidentiary equivalent of a junkie snitch charged with drug crimes handing the police a tape recording of her dealer saying “thanks for the two hundred dollars, here’s your eightball of crack.” Probably enough to convict, definitely enough to establish probable cause of a crime.

The bottom line is that Agent Ohm provided sufficient information to establish probable cause that Mikulewicz repeatedly violated § 968.31(1)(a), and Agent Ohm did not withhold information that was genuinely material to the court’s probable cause determination. This is not a basis to quash the warrant or suppress evidence.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.