W.D.N.C.: Def agreed to electronic monitoring as a condition of release

Defendant agreed to electronic monitoring as a condition of release, so it was admissible in evidence. United States v. Anthony, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40422 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2024).

Defendant’s improper lane change was seen in the rearview mirror, so it’s not on dashcam. The officer’s testimony is credited, and the stop was lawful. United States v. Spencer, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40100 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 7, 2024).*

Even if there was no probable cause to arrest, the later indictment provides it, even though the case was dropped. To invoke the tainted intermediary doctrine, more has to be shown than here. “Merely invoking the taint exception is not enough. See Shaw v. Villanueva, 918 F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining ‘all broth and no beans’ will not suffice to establish the exception). Rather, ‘a plaintiff must show that the official’s malicious motive led [him] to withhold relevant information or otherwise misdirect the independent intermediary by omission or commission.’ McLin, 866 F.3d at 689. To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must at least allege ‘facts supporting [an] inference’ of such wrongdoing. Id. at 690.” Espinal v. City of Houston, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5552 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Surveillance technology. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.