Court Tells Deputy He Can't Lie About Reasons For A Traffic Stop And Expect To Keep His Evidence

Furnished content.

The nation's courts don't have a problem with pretextual traffic stops. Any traffic violation -- real or imagined -- can trigger an investigatory stop. There are limits, of course. The Supreme Court's Rodriguez decision says officers can't extend stops past the objective of the stop if reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity fails to materialize.

It's perfectly legal to pull someone over for crossing a fog line when all you really want to do is search their vehicle for contraband. But you have to stick to the pretext… at least for the most part. A host of excuses and exceptions (good faith, plain view, "I smelled marijuana," etc.) salvage most stops-turned-searches but if a defendant can show the stop itself was bogus, all bets are off.

This short federal court decision [PDF] ordered the suppression of evidence obtained during a pretextual stop, and calls out a sheriff's deputy for lying about the reason for the stop, one that resulted in the discovery of drugs and weapons. (via The Newspaper)

According to the police narrative, a stop was performed on Cedric Gordon's vehicle because his rear license plate wasn't properly illuminated.

In his narrative, Deputy Forbert maintains that he attempted to read the vehicle’s license tag number but was unable to do so because the vehicle’s tag lights were out. Deputy Forbert followed the Defendant’s vehicle for approximately two minutes, or one-half mile, before initiating the traffic stop because the tag lights were out. After initiating the traffic stop, Deputy Forbert approached the Defendant’s vehicle and claims he smelled marijuana coming from the vehicle. Deputy Forbert ran the vehicle’s tag number and the Defendant’s criminal history came back positive. Deputy Forbert subsequently arrested the Defendant and the vehicle was searched, revealing a firearm and controlled substances.

This story might have held up anywhere but in court, where actual evidence needs to be presented. Gordon presented his, which included photos of his vehicle during the traffic stop -- photos that clearly showed his rear license plate was illuminated.

Faced with actual evidence, Deputy Forbert began backtracking on his original testimony, covering up his lies with more lies. The court details the Forbert's attempts to move the goalposts.

At the hearing on this Motion [14], Deputy Forbert repeatedly contradicted the statements contained in his narrative and provided implausible testimony regarding the reasonable suspicion he had at the time of initiating the traffic stop. For example, Deputy Forbert’s narrative stated that he initiated the traffic stop because the vehicle’s tag lights were not working, but when questioned by the Court, Deputy Forbert admitted that the Defendant’s tag lights were working on the night in question. Instead, Deputy Forbert explained that he initiated the traffic stop because the Defendant’s license tag was not illuminated brightly enough. Deputy Forbert claimed that he was unable to read the darkened tag from fifty feet away, as required under the statute. When questioned further by the Court, Deputy Forbert maintained that the tag was too dimly lit to read even forty feet away. However, Deputy Forbert eventually admitted at the hearing that he was able to see that the tag lights were in fact working and that the tag was illuminated once he stopped the vehicle.

With the license plate story destroyed, Deputy Forbert tried to bring in a new set of goalposts. The court wants nothing to do with them.

The Government also argues that even if the Defendant’s tag lights were working properly, Deputy Forbert had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop because the seatbelt violation alone was sufficient to justify the stop. At the suppression hearing, Deputy Forbert stated that he intended to perform a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation, contrary to the narrative he prepared the day of the traffic stop. Deputy Forbert maintained that he had reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop because he was able to see the passenger attempting to put her seatbelt on through the tinted windows. However, when questioned by the Court, Deputy Forbert admitted that the windows were darkly tinted and stated that he did not actually view the passenger without her seatbelt on. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing on this matter, the Court finds the evidence of a seatbelt violation unconvincing.

In other words, the court believes the officer is lying. Of course, it's never phrased this way, but a court stating it does not find an officer's testimony credible is about as close to calling them a liar as a federal court will ever get. The end result is the suppression of evidence, the only thing supporting Cedric Gordon's conviction. Without the gun and drugs, all the government's left with is what it had to begin with: a vehicle with properly-illuminated license plates.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Read more here

0 comments, click here to add the first

Australian MP Pushes Back Against Expanded Site And Search Blocking Laws

Furnished content.


We've been talking for several months now about the amendments to Australian copyright law currently under consideration by the government there. As a refresher, Australia put a site-blocking policy in place several years ago. That policy has been praised by both government and rightsholders as effective, even as those same interests insist that it doesn't do enough to stop piracy down under. As a result, the government is currently considering amendments to Australian copyright law that would make it easier for extra-judicial blocks of "piracy sites" and their mirrors, and includes demands that search engines like Google participate in this censorship as well, despite the fact that blocking search returns relevant to a user request is the opposite of what Google does. Predictably, the amendments to the law have wide support across political parties in Australia, and pretty much everyone is sure it's going to pass as is.A key aspect of this is that all of the focus is on piracy and how to stop or minimize it, regardless of whatever negative effects that might have on ISPs and a free and open internet. There has been zero focus thus far on whether these legal mechanisms are really the optimal route to addressing this problem. This week, however, one Australian MP decided to grab a microphone and finally take rightsholders to task.

An expansion of Australia's piracy site-block laws is "a form of regulatory hallucinogen", Labor MP Ed Husic has said, adding that the voice of the consumer needs to be heard and rights holders should be less "resistant" to digitisation and reforming their systems."The big challenge is the freeing-up of copyright to ensure that innovation can spread more widely and to face up to big rights holders and the types of hysterical arguments we get in this space," Husic said. "These rights holders think that by constantly using legal mechanisms through this place and elsewhere, piracy will disappear. The reality is that piracy is a reflection of a market failure."

"As lawmakers, just because we might get a selfie with Richard Roxburgh -- I love Rake as much as anyone else -- or a political party gets a donation from a rights holder, does not mean that we should stop looking at how to make the types of reforms that balance the needs of creatives and the needs of producers versus the needs of consumers," he said.

0 comments, click here to add the first