CA6: No adverse inference drawn from officer allegedly delaying turning on video in police car

Court declines to infer that the officer turned on his camera intentionally late in violation of state rules just to not record the alleged violations. His testimony was credited by the district court and that was enough. Dog’s alert was PC for a search. United States v. Wickersham, 344 Fed. Appx. 155, 2009 FED App. 0608N (6th Cir. 2009), cert. den. 2010 U.S. LEXIS 791 (U.S., Jan. 25, 2010) (unpublished).*

Application of the good faith exception to a search is reviewed de novo. The magistrate did not abandon her neutral and detached role, it did not lack indicia of probable cause, and the warrant specified the things to be seized and the place to be searched. United States v. Cruse, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19116 (11th Cir. August 26, 2009) (unpublished).*

Police saw defendant riding a bicycle on a sidewalk in violation of law, and he got off the bike and the officer could see the unmistakable L shape of a gun in his jeans. The officer was justified in approaching the defendant to detain him and ask about the gun. A patdown was justified. Defendant’s argument that it could have been a cellphone or an iPod is unpersuasive. United States v. Rios, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74895 (S.D. N.Y. August 24, 2009).*

Defendant was shown to have consented to his search. His claim that it was at gunpoint was never presented to the district court and was waived. United States v. Sanni-Shittu, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19011 (5th Cir. August 21, 2009) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.