{"id":7689,"date":"2012-09-10T06:25:00","date_gmt":"2012-09-10T06:25:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-09-10T06:25:00","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7689","title":{"rendered":"TN: Defendant couldn&#8217;t overcome officer&#8217;s testimony he was going faster than the officer and speeding"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The trial court did not err in accepting the officer\u2019s testimony that the defendant was going faster than he was, so he stopped him. Defendant\u2019s argument that he was actually going slower than the officer projected was based on a land surveyor\u2019s opinion from the video, but the land surveyor wasn\u2019t called as a witness. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.tsc.state.tn.us\/sites\/default\/files\/whitecharlesopn.pdf\">State v. White<\/a>, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 690 (August 31, 2012).* [If you\u2019re challenging the officer\u2019s testimony that the defendant wasn\u2019t committing a traffic violation, you can only win if the officer\u2019s testimony is really, really vague or just plain incredible to the point it would be error to accept it (I\u2019ve seen only one here). On the clearly erroneous standard, if there\u2019s <em>anything<\/em> for the trial court to attach to, the defendant loses on appeal. This is not a trade secret\u2013the police already know it. That\u2019s why they can testify so vaguely as \u201che said, she said\u201d and the factfinding is virtually unchallengable.]<\/p>\n<p>Where a motion to suppress would not have been granted had it been made, defense counsel could not be ineffective for not making it. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.state.il.us\/court\/Opinions\/AppellateCourt\/2012\/4thDistrict\/4100945.pdf\">People v. Brock<\/a>, 2012 IL App (4th) 100945, 2012 Ill. App. LEXIS 737 (September 7, 2012).*<\/p>\n<p>In a dissent from a denial of certiorari, the dissenter opines there was no probable cause shown in the thin attempt to support the CI and a failure from the affidavit itself in Alabama is a failure of the good faith exception. (The decision cert was sought from is not reported.) Lane v. State, 2012 Ala. LEXIS 113 (September 7, 2012) (Malone, J., dissenting).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7689\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7689","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7689","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7689"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7689\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7689"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7689"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7689"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}