W.D.Ky.: CI not shown to be creditable, and there was no RS for stop; defendant without standing still gains suppression

Defendant was a passenger and lacked standing to challenge the search of the car he was in, but he still prevails. He can only challenge the stop. Here, the stop was not consensual, and the driver was not free to leave when a police car pulled in front of it and the officer walked back. While the fellow officer rule allows one officer to credit another’s informant, the informant’s tale still has to have indicia of reliability or trustworthiness, and here it didn’t. United States v. Oliver, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92988 (W.D. Ky. July 5, 2012):

Even though the suspicion level necessary for an investigative stop is minimal, the Government has not shown there was reasonable suspicion to believe Oliver and Woodson were engaged in criminal activity. The Government failed to offer any background on the informant. The tip lacked verifiable information for the officers. No specifics were offered on Oliver’s connection to the apartment. The Government did not elicit statements from Pearson explaining what he knew about Oliver’s criminal record before the detention. Taken in the aggregate, the Government failed to carry its burden and prove the police acted with reasonable suspicion.

. . .

Despite its best efforts, the Court cannot conceive of a scenario whereby the police would have gathered this inculpatory evidence through the inevitable-discovery doctrine or the independent-source rule. See id. As the Government bears the burden to prove the appropriateness of these doctrines, its silence forecloses their application. See United States v. Fofana, 666 F.3d 985, 992 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2012). Judging from the clear implications of the evidence, the pistol and Oliver’s statement are unaffected by either of these legal rules.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.