Defendant\u2019s stop was justified for reasonable suspicion, and that is all the standard is; not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Turrentine, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28511 (W.D. Okla. March 5, 2012)*:<\/p>\n
While the defendant’s evidence might well be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant committed the traffic violation, that is not the standard here. For present purposes, the question is whether the government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation occurred, hence justifying the trooper’s action. The court concludes it has. Trooper Painter testified that he observed the violation and the court found his testimony to be generally credible. Defendant’s suggestion that the trooper’s smile shown on the video is inconsistent with observing a traffic violation is speculative and ultimately unpersuasive. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Changing information from the CI served to enhance his credibility. The CI was believable and supported the stop, as did only the information that the police knew. United States v. Pete<\/a>, 463 Fed. Appx. 113 (3d Cir. 2012) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading