Defendant filed a motion to suppress and a motion to produce the \u201cactivity logs\u201d of the officers involved for the 60 days prior to his stop. He wants to see whether the officers claimed to have smelled marijuana during those stops, too. Denied: \u201cSimply put, West has not yet identified evidence that could support a finding that the requested activity logs reflect repeated detections of marijuana odor by Officers Carter and Carson such that the impeachment value of the logs would \u2018alter the quantum of proof\u2019 at the upcoming suppression hearing. Lykins, 428 Fed. App’x at 624. In West’s own words, there is a \u2018possibility\u2019 that the logs reflect false or numerous marijuana detections by Officers Carter and Carson. … But a mere \u2018possibility\u2019 is not enough to warrant disclosure under Rule 16.\u201d United States v. West, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41865 (E.D. Mich. March 23, 2017). [What would it really prove? Try talking to a client in your office who says the police smelled marijuana in his car. Often the client smells of marijuana because, if a regular smoker, they can\u2019t even smell it on themselves, let alone in their own car. Just an observation …]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant filed a motion to suppress and a motion to produce the \u201cactivity logs\u201d of the officers involved for the 60 days prior to his stop. He wants to see whether the officers claimed to have smelled marijuana during those … Continue reading