W.D.Mich.: Search and seizure Brady, even if there was one, wouldn’t change the outcome

Defendant makes a 2255 Brady claim about the information for his search and seizure. But, it doesn’t change the outcome. “Defendant fails to explain, and the Court fails to discern, how inclusion of the information Defendant sets forth in support of his claim would have altered that outcome in any way. Thus, the Court cannot agree with Defendant that any Brady violation occurred.” Wilson v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219104 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024).*

Defendant’s overtinted windows justified his stop. The officer could not determine the gender of the driver. State v. Fleckinger, 2024-Ohio-5659 (1st Dist. Dec. 4, 2024).*

The search warrant was based partly on a CI’s tip and information from other law enforcement agencies and was based on probable cause. It also was all done in good faith. United States v. Ward, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217486 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 2, 2024).*

Defendant’s stop was based on a CI’s statement, and the CI had a substantial track record with the police and was sufficiently corroborated. United States v. Ellington, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218599 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 25, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217277 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 2, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.