E.D.Mich.: Def showed enough to reopen his suppression hearing which is usually frowned on

Defendant’s motion to reopen his suppression hearing is granted. “To resolve Defendant’s motion, the Court must determine whether Defendant has provided a sufficient explanation for failing to present at the suppression hearing the evidence that Defendant now wishes to introduce. If Defendant has made such a showing, then the Court must consider (1) whether Defendant’s motion is timely; (2) the character of the evidence that Defendant would introduce; (3) the effect reopening the suppression hearing; and (4) whether the Government will be prejudiced if the suppression hearing is reopened. See United States v. Holland, 522 F. App’x 265, 270 (6th Cir. 2013). Defendant provided a sufficient explanation for failing to introduce at the suppression hearing the evidence that he now wishes to present, and the other four Holland factors weigh in his favor.” United States v. Goodson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16203 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2024).

The legality of possession of a firearm isn’t determinative for reasonable suspicion. “Additionally, Officer Taylor had reasonable suspicion that Conner was armed and dangerous, permitting the frisk of Conner’s pocket. As the Fourth Circuit explained, pursuant to Supreme Court precedent, ‘the legality of the frisk does not depend on the illegality of the firearm’s possession.’ United States v. Robinson, 846 F.3d 694, 701 (4th Cir. 2017). Rather, ‘[t]he danger justifying a protective frisk arises from the combination of a forced police encounter and the presence of a weapon, not from any illegality of the weapon’s possession.’ Id. at 696. In addition to testifying regarding his knowledge that Conner was likely armed, Officer Taylor testified concerning the safety risks to officers when approaching groups of individuals who are suspected to be armed. Officer Taylor also testified that there were moments where the officers could not see all four men, which made it possible for the men to be in possession of additional firearms of which the officers were unaware.” United States v. Conner, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15773 (E.D. La. Jan. 30, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Reasonable suspicion, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.