D.Minn.: There is no duty under Brady for officers executing a SW to seize exculpatory evidence, too

The government executed a search warrant for emails on defendant’s computer. The searching officers have no duty to seize exculpatory information when they execute the warrant. “All Brady requires is that if the prosecution seized those emails, it turn over any exculpatory content within them to the defense. Brady does not require the prosecution to have a good reason for not possessing exculpatory content; it simply asks whether the prosecution in fact possessed it or not.” United States v. Crump, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193514 (D. Minn. Oct. 27, 2023).

The car’s occupants’ failure to identify themselves led to the delay. Seven minutes into the stop, an open bottle of tequila was seen in the back seat. Extension of the stop wasn’t unreasonable. Villamares v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8217 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Oct. 30, 2023).*

The Fourth Amendment does not specifically require a “Rodriguez moment,” but here there was one, when the rental contract was returned and the warning ticket should have been started. The reasonable suspicion threshold is “not onerous.” “In this court’s view, by quite a narrow margin, the government has met its burden.” United States v. Robbins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193952 (E.D. Okla. Oct. 30, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.