\u201cIf six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony? That’s the question facing the Court on Defendant’s motion to suppress. Because the Court has no basis to call those law enforcement officers liars other than its own misgivings, it concludes that it is so bound. Defendant’s motion will be denied.\u201d United States v. Randle, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111347 (N.D. Ind. June 28, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s arrest by the FBI on a detainer when he was released by the Navajo Nation Police from a tribal jail was lawful and reasonable and didn\u2019t violate a treaty with the Navajo Nation. United States v. Peshlakai, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111275 (D.N.M. June 28, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff was searched inside his underwear. Because he couldn\u2019t identify which of two officers did it, both prevail for his failure to state a claim. McKay v. Krimmel, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16332 (3d Cir. June 28, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The statement that defendant had a stolen truck on his property when it was, in fact, parked just over the property line on his father\u2019s property was not recklessly false for Franks. United States v. Siegert, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111204 (W.D. Tex. June 28, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cIf six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony? That’s the question facing the Court on Defendant’s motion to suppress. Because the Court has no basis to … Continue reading