The Franks issues did not rise to materiality. The officer was credible that the time stamp on the digital photograph showed the picture taken before the search rather than after was an error on the camera because he didn\u2019t check the time stamp for accuracy. The camera was automatic and did all the work for him. Thus, the court finds that the time stamp was simply wrong and not an attempt to be misleading. United States v. Davis, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176908 (D.Nev. Dec. 29, 2015), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32437 (D. Nev. Mar. 14, 2016).<\/p>\n
Police responded to plaintiff\u2019s house because of a call that he was cutting or stabbing and acting \u201ccrazy.\u201d Two women were there crying. He was Tased for not heeding police commands to not go back into his house. \u201cAs the party requesting summary judgment, the police officers had the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine dispute regarding whether they acted wantonly or maliciously. The police officers met their burden.\u201d Harris v. City of Columbus<\/a>, 2016-Ohio-1036, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 933 (10th Dist. March 15, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Franks issues did not rise to materiality. The officer was credible that the time stamp on the digital photograph showed the picture taken before the search rather than after was an error on the camera because he didn\u2019t check … Continue reading