Opinion ID: 695142
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court's Suppression Ruling

Text: 9 After hearing the evidence and appellants' argument that the traffic stop was pretextual and thus violated the Fourth Amendment, the District Court denied appellants' motions to suppress the physical evidence. Although the court noted some minor discrepancies between testimony by Littlejohn and Soto, it noted that 10 the one thing that was not controverted ... is the facts surrounding the stop. There may be different ways in which one can interpret it but, truly, the facts of the stop were not controverted. There was nothing to really demonstrate that the actions of the officers were contrary to a normal traffic stop. It may not be what some of us believe should be done, or when it should be done, or how it should be done, but the facts stand uncontroverted, and the court is going to accept the testimony of Officer Soto. 11 The court thus concluded that the government has demonstrated through the evidence presented that the police conduct was appropriate and, therefore, there is no basis to suppress the evidence.