The government didn\u2019t like the R&R so it moved to put on additional evidence before the USMJ. Granted. \u201cTherefore, in light of the Court’s \u2018responsibility to make an informed decision\u2019 on Wright’s suppression motion, Khan, 2018 WL 2214813, at *2, it will afford the Government an opportunity to present additional testimony on a provisional basis from any individual present during the officer’s application for the 66th St. Warrant (other than the officer himself). This provisional presentation will allow the Court to assess the content and credibility of the additional witnesses’ testimony before entering a recommendation on whether the District Judge should consider it.\u201d United States v. Wright, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127858 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer here used excessive force when he punched and tackled the detainee and put him in a chokehold, and this alleged use of force would have violated a clearly established constitutional right. Any officer in the situation should have known that punching and tackling the detainee and using a chokehold, without a warning, would have violated the Fourth Amendment. McWilliams v. Dinapoli<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 19843 (10th Cir. July 19, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officers suspected defendant for being at a drug house the DEA was watching. They found a warrant for his arrest. The stop led to the smell of marijuana and a vehicle search. United States v. Mayo, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128099 (M.D. Ga. July 19, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The government didn\u2019t like the R&R so it moved to put on additional evidence before the USMJ. Granted. \u201cTherefore, in light of the Court’s \u2018responsibility to make an informed decision\u2019 on Wright’s suppression motion, Khan, 2018 WL 2214813, at *2, … Continue reading