<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[H]ere, the People presented practically no testimony regarding the undercover officer’s observations of the seller’s appearance to support a determination that he had a sufficient independent basis to identify defendant in court. This error requires reversal. Because the record of the probable cause hearing provided an insufficient basis for an independent source determination, defendant was entitled to an independent source hearing, as requested.\u201d People v. Williams<\/a>, 2024 NY Slip Op 02128 (N.Y. Apr. 23, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The government showed reasonable suspicion defendant was \u201cusing\u201d a cell phone while driving justifying defendant\u2019s stop. United States v. Yousef, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72541 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court already held that the statements were not false, so a motion to reconsider based on further attacks on the officer\u2019s credibility won\u2019t help. United States v. Richards, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72734 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201c[H]ere, the People presented practically no testimony regarding the undercover officer’s observations of the seller’s appearance to support a determination that he had a sufficient independent basis to identify defendant in court. This error requires reversal. Because the record of … Continue reading