N.D. W.Va. notes that officers have an interest in having their searches validated such that it bears on their credibility
FourthAmendment.com:
In weighing the credibility of witnesses, the N.D. W.Va. notes that officers have an interest in having their searches validated such that it bears on their credibility. The officers responded to a domestic disturbance call and heard nothing from inside. The came to the door and pushed open a door to better see inside. United States v. Bridges, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47850 (N.D. W.Va. June 12, 2008):
In weighing the credibility of the witnesses, the Court is well aware that all three of them have an interest in the outcome of this motion. Williams and Floyd obviously have an interest in having the constitutionality of their search validated. No officer wants to commit an error that results in a criminal going free due to the suppression of incriminating evidence. On the other hand, Bridges is strongly motivated to remember events in a way that invalidates the search. If this evidence is suppressed, he and Oliverio will go free. Otherwise, they risk conviction and incarceration for federal drug offenses. After weighing the witnesses’ credibility, this Court finds that the government has failed to carry its burden of establishing consent to the search by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means that it is more likely than not that something is true. Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121, 137, 117 S. Ct. 1953, 138 L. Ed. 2d 327 (1997). The government’s evidence fails to persuade that it is more likely that Bridges gave consent than it is that he refused to consent to the search of his home.
The credibility of the police officers was damaged by admissions they made during the hearing that they had misstated the events at Bridges’s home in the report they authored only minutes after the incident. Tr. 56-57. Written by…