{"id":18433,"date":"2015-08-14T06:46:11","date_gmt":"2015-08-14T11:46:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18433"},"modified":"2015-08-14T06:48:03","modified_gmt":"2015-08-14T11:48:03","slug":"n-d-cal-defs-parole-status-admissible-to-show-why-he-was-subjected-to-a-rigorous-search-so-motives-of-officers-wouldnt-be-questioned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18433","title":{"rendered":"N.D.Cal.: Def&#8217;s parole status admissible to show why he was subjected to a rigorous search so motives of officers wouldn&#8217;t be questioned"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s being on parole was admissible to explain why he was subjected to a rigorous search because, otherwise, the officers\u2019 motives might be questioned. United States v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS  105518 (N.D.Cal. August 11, 2015):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Government has indicated that the responding SFPD officers will testify that they knew Defendant was on parole. Gov.&#8217;s Mot. at 2. Without knowledge that Defendant was on parole, and that McAlpine&#8217;s home was searched pursuant to Defendant&#8217;s parole search condition, the jury would lack necessary context for the search. This lack of context would leave jurors to speculate why such a rigorous search resulted from an erroneous 911 call, inviting skepticism about the officers&#8217; motives. This is especially true here, as Defendant has made clear that he intends to elicit testimony that challenges the constitutional basis for these searches. See Def.&#8217;s Mot. at 23. The evidence is therefore necessary not only for the coherence of the Government&#8217;s factual narrative about the commission of the crime, but also to prevent undue prejudice against testifying officers. Accordingly, evidence of Defendant&#8217;s parole status and search condition are admissible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant\u2019s being on parole was admissible to explain why he was subjected to a rigorous search because, otherwise, the officers\u2019 motives might be questioned. United States v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105518 (N.D.Cal. August 11, 2015):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[58],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-probationparole-search"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18433"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18433\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18436,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18433\/revisions\/18436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}