The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey, guys, Anthony Bandiero Here, Senior Legal instructor at Blue two gold law enforcement training. I got another question. And I thought it was a great question. And it's not a search and seizure related question. It's an evidence related question. But it's something that drug investigators especially run into all the time, and it's wanting to use the use this as an opportunity to share some information. So the question is, is, if a narcotics investigator is has a parallel investigation, you know, and they ask another officer, usually a uniformed officer to develop independence, reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the defendant's car. And that turns into a search and, you know, in drug evidence is found, does the defendants have a right to, to gain information about the investigation that kind of prompted this pre tech stop?

Right. And these are called Wall stops, because there's a wall between the the actual stop, which was, let's say, a speeding violation or whatnot, and an ongoing criminal investigation that may actually be based off of may have probable cause to, to also stop the defendants vehicle or not. But the point is, there's a wall between these two, and this, this, this parallel investigation is usually the reason why it's it's a pretext stop. So does defendant have a right to that information? The answer is no. And here's why. There are two principles at play here. First of all, it's in play here is the Brady rule. Right? You've if you were a cop in 2019, you've definitely heard of Brady violations. Right. Brady come from Brady V. Maryland. It's a US Supreme Court case that essentially says that the prosecutor has an obligation to hand over exculpatory evidence to the defendants, exculpatory evidence, right? Not inculpatory exculpatory that's fancy legal jargon for things that help defend and prove his innocence. Right? Or things that would help him get a reduced sentence. If you if you're sitting that kind of information, you got to hand it over because the defendant needs it for his defense. If not, it's a due process violation. So let's talk about why not handing over this parallel investigation. You know, the stuff behind the wall is not is not a Brady violation. Well, first of all, it's 99%, probably not going to be exculpatory. Everything that you know about this defendant tends to show, I believe, you know, if it's a drug investigation, and he is involved in narcotics sales, he has been trafficking. He has been undercover or hand-to-hand transactions or sold to an undercover officer. That's not going to help him he doesn't want that information in the court. So it's not exculpatory. Right? And so that's, that's the main reason. It has nothing to do with what the actual reason for the stop, which was, let's say, speeding and so forth, so it doesn't help them. So there's no due process violation. Now, just to be clear, it also, the evidence would also now have to be exculpatory, exculpatory, but also material, because we get a lot of info as police officers, we get a lot of information that may tend to prove or help the defendant. show his innocence. For example, if you're investigating an aggravated battery, and the defendant's neighbor says, you know, the defendant, he is such a nice person, I've never seen him hurt a fly, and he helps me take out my trash every Sunday. Do you need to give that information over to the defendant? Is that is that a material exculpatory information? No, absolutely not. It doesn't have nothing has nothing to do with the crime issue, which is aggravated battery.....