The court finds, with the evidence in equipoise, the government didn\u2019t meet its burden of showing the arrest happened inside defendant\u2019s house or outside. This is critical, because the police did a protective sweep and used that to get a search warrant. Thus, the motion to suppress is granted. United States v. Rucks, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200149 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022). This case is interesting in the court\u2019s explanation of how it credited the testimony from both sides, finding the defendant\u2019s testimony credible, too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
The court thus concludes this case presents the “rare[]” situation in which the evidence is in equipoise, with the allocation of the appropriate burden determining the result. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys., 141 S. Ct. 1951, 1963, 210 L. Ed. 2d 347 (2021) (explaining district court’s “task” is to review all evidence and determine “whether [one narrative] is more likely than not”; allocation of burden only has “bite \u2026 when the court finds the evidence in equipoise”). Here, the government had the burden to show it was more likely than not Mr. Rucks was arrested inside his apartment. See Matlock, 415 U.S. at 177 n.14. It has not met that burden. For purposes of resolving the motion to suppress then, the court assumes Mr. Rucks was arrested outside his home.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The court finds, with the evidence in equipoise, the government didn\u2019t meet its burden of showing the arrest happened inside defendant\u2019s house or outside. This is critical, because the police did a protective sweep and used that to get a … Continue reading