MD: Def’s burden to prove custody, but he didn’t testify

“It was [defendant]’s burden to prove custody. … Payne opted to remain silent at the suppression hearing; therefore, we have been provided no contrast to the evidence given by Detective Patterson, upon which the court reasonably relied.” The trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Payne v. State, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 1069 (Dec. 17, 2019).* [Take this one with a grain of salt.]

A license plate check revealed that defendant’s Trailblazer near the border hadn’t crossed before, and the occupants were, by USBP standards and training, acting not normal. Also, the vehicle was riding too low for the number of passengers, and the officer thought there might be other people hidden inside. On the totality, there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. United States v. Velasquez, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217498 (D. Ariz. Oct. 23, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216422 (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Immigration arrests, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.