D.Minn.: Govt’s suggestion in briefing in opposition to motion to suppress CI was a witness requires disclosure

The government’s brief in opposition to defendant’s motion to suppress suggests that the CI is a potential witness here, so the government is ordered to disclose his or her ID. Disclosure is enough. The court won’t go so far as to order the government to make the CI available for an interview. United States v. Finch, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23369 (D.Minn. Feb. 9, 2022).

It was objectively reasonable to make a traffic stop for not signaling a turn pulling out of a private parking lot. The statute isn’t clear that’s an offense. State v. Stewart, 2022-Ohio-199, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 311 (8th Dist. Jan. 27, 2022).*

The court credits the officers that defendant didn’t stop before a crosswalk at a stop sign, and that’s a traffic offense. They discussed on bodycam the smell of marijuana as they approached the car. That was probable cause under the automobile exception. United States v. Sanders, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23336 (E.D.Tex. Feb. 9, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Informant hearsay, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.