Defendant\u2019s stop was based on reasonable suspicion he was in the country illegally, but it was a case of mistaken identity. \u201cDefendant was observed emerging from the vicinity of the target’s residence. Defendant closely resembled the target. Any discrepancy between the target’s physical characteristics and defendant’s may be excused by the inherent imprecision of human perception in gauging an individual’s height and weight without the aid of a fiducial element.\u201d Still, the motion to suppress is denied because the officer acted reasonably. United States v. Lopez-Tubac, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125194 (N.D. Iowa July 26, 2018).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s motion for return of property is denied for a failure to make a proper offer of proof that the government had anything taken from him. United States v. Mayes, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125319 (E.D. Tenn. July 26, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s stop was based on reasonable suspicion he was in the country illegally, but it was a case of mistaken identity. \u201cDefendant was observed emerging from the vicinity of the target’s residence. Defendant closely resembled the target. Any discrepancy between … Continue reading