\u201cAfter indicating that Baez verbally consented to the search of the Ford Escape, Officer Mahoney changed her testimony and indicated that she did not remember how Baez gave consent to search the vehicle. Yet, somehow, she remembers that consent was given. The Court finds Officer Mahoney’s testimony incredible because it is highly unlikely that Officer Mahoney can be sure that consent was granted if she cannot even remember the manner in which consent was given\u2014whether through words or gesture.\u201d United States v. Jimenez, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8628 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2018).<\/p>\n
Yes, officers have some potential credibility issues because it is their investigation that\u2019s at issue. Here, the credibility balance tips in favor of the officer and not the other witness who has her own bias in protecting defendant. Marijuana flakes in the car was probable cause more marijuana would be found. United States v. Harris, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8844 (M.D. La. Jan. 19, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAfter indicating that Baez verbally consented to the search of the Ford Escape, Officer Mahoney changed her testimony and indicated that she did not remember how Baez gave consent to search the vehicle. Yet, somehow, she remembers that consent was … Continue reading