US v. Olabimpe Adetayo


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cr-00637-PJM-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000048437]. [16-4660]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4660 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/24/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4660 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OLABIMPE K. ADETAYO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cr-00637-PJM-1) Submitted: March 16, 2017 Decided: March 24, 2017 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan Skelton, Appellate Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Hollis Weisman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4660 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/24/2017 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Olabimpe K. Adetayo appeals from the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s judgment of conviction for impeding or interfering with an officer in the performance of official duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) (2012). * Finding no merit to Adetayo’s claims, we affirm. Adetayo first alleges that the magistrate judge erred by denying her motion to dismiss the criminal complaint, arguing that the Government violated her due process rights by destroying the video recording of the incident giving rise to her convictions. In evaluating the denial of a motion to dismiss, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d 307, 313-14 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Woolfolk, 399 F.3d 590, 594 (4th Cir. 2005). The state’s failure to disclose evidence favorable to an accused either violates to guilt due or process to where punishment, the “irrespective faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” * evidence is of material the good Brady v. Maryland, 373 The magistrate judge also convicted Adetayo of driving on a learner’s permit without supervision, in violation of Md. Code Ann, Transp. § 16-105(b)(1) (LexisNexis 2012); failing to carry vehicle registration, in violation of Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 13-409(a) (LexisNexis 2012); and unsafe lane changing, in violation of Md. Code Ann., Transp. § 21-309(b) (LexisNexis 2012). On appeal, Adetayo does not challenge those convictions. 2 Appeal: 16-4660 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/24/2017 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). preserve potentially Pg: 3 of 4 By contrast, where the state fails to useful evidence, such failure does not violate the Due Process Clause unless the defendant can show bad faith. Illinois v. Fisher, 540 U.S. 544, 547-48 (2004) (citing Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57-58 (1988)). Bad faith “requires that the officer have intentionally withheld the evidence for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of the use of that evidence during h[er] criminal trial.” v. Collins, 221 F.3d 656, 663 (4th Cir. 2000). Jean The negligent destruction of evidence, without more, does not constitute bad faith. See Elmore v. Ozmint, 661 F.3d 783, 831 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding the negligent erasure of the tape of a bank robbery was not bad faith). parties’ We have reviewed the record on appeal and the arguments with these standards in mind and find no reversible error in the magistrate judge’s denial of the motion to dismiss. In her second claim, Adetayo contends that the magistrate judge improperly declined to apply an adverse inference against the Government that unpreserved video surveillance footage would have been favorable to her. We discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 3 Appeal: 16-4660 Doc: 23 Filed: 03/24/2017 Pg: 4 of 4 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?