US v. Olabimpe Adetayo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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