Category Archives: Unreasonable application / § 2254(d)

E.D.Mich.: Younger bars federal injunction against state criminal prosecution

Younger bars an injunction against defendant’s criminal prosecution for an alleged illegal search. McDowell v. Plymouth Twp. Police Dep’t, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96568 (E.D. Mich. May 30, 2024). “Reasonable jurists could not disagree with the district court’s denial of … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Younger bars federal injunction against state criminal prosecution

E.D.Cal.: The fact mj is legal in CA doesn’t make it so in a national park; plain smell was PC

Defendant’s stop was based on a radio report of an older Lexus driving erratically. When the officer saw the car, the LPN was expired. The stop led to the officer smelling marijuana. The smell was enough to invoke the automobile … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Plain view, feel, smell, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: The fact mj is legal in CA doesn’t make it so in a national park; plain smell was PC

UT: RS on a prior day was not RS for stop on day in question

Even assuming the officer had reasonable suspicion defendant was involved in a prior incident, he had no reasonable suspicion for stopping defendant this time. State v. Correa, 2024 UT App 69, 2024 Utah App. LEXIS 69 (May 9, 2024). Petitioner … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on UT: RS on a prior day was not RS for stop on day in question

W.D.Ky.: Illegal stop that was suppressed not excluded in § 1983 case

“Although the marijuana in Codrington’s car was discovered through an unreasonable search, that is immaterial to the Court’s analysis because the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply to § 1983 proceedings. As long as the marijuana found in Codrington’s … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Good faith exception, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: Illegal stop that was suppressed not excluded in § 1983 case

D.N.D.: Defs showed no connection to the premises as overnight guests to have standing

Defendants had no real connection to the place searched to have standing. “There was no evidence presented to support the Defendants’ allegation that they had permission from the owners (Stevens and Levings) to stay in the home as overnight guests. … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.N.D.: Defs showed no connection to the premises as overnight guests to have standing

D.Kan.: Cross-designated state-federal officer was “federal officer” for assault charge during execution of SW

Assaulting a state officer cross-designated as a federal officer qualified for assaulting a federal officer during execution of a search warrant. United States v. Butler, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36172 (D. Kan. Mar. 1, 2024). The state courts did not … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Cross-designated state-federal officer was “federal officer” for assault charge during execution of SW

TN: Moving purse from car after PC developed makes it subject to search incident

A passenger can’t defeat an automobile exception search by removing her purse after probable cause developed. Cases in other jurisdictions have held that removal before probable cause developed put it beyond search. State v. Hoffman, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Search incident, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on TN: Moving purse from car after PC developed makes it subject to search incident

CA7: Claim of excessive force in arrest by federal agent does not state new type of Bivens claim

A claim of excessive force during an arrest by a federal agent does not state a new type of Bivens claim, and it can proceed. Snowden v. Henning, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16221 (7th Cir. June 27, 2023). (This was … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Custody, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA7: Claim of excessive force in arrest by federal agent does not state new type of Bivens claim

LA5: Unenclosed driveways are not part of the curtilage

“Louisiana jurisprudence has indicated that unenclosed driveways, like the driveway in the instant case, are not part of the curtilage with respect to Fourth Amendment cases.” State v. Bourgeois, 2023 La. App. LEXIS 901 ( La. App. 5 Cir May … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Curtilage, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on LA5: Unenclosed driveways are not part of the curtilage

D.P.R.: Mere presence of FBI at USPO search didn’t make PO ‘stalking horse’

Mere presence of FBI and other law enforcement officers at USPO’s search based on reasonable suspicion did not make the PO a “stalking horse” for the police. United States v. Borges-Sánchez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66017 (D.P.R. Apr. 14, 2023). … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Nexus, Probation / Parole search, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Mere presence of FBI at USPO search didn’t make PO ‘stalking horse’

S.D.Ill.: Strategy under Strickland for defense to admit SW affidavit into evidence

It was not unreasonable strategy for the defense to admit at trial the affidavit for his search warrant to challenge the quality of the investigation that the search produced nothing and the informant wasn’t reliable. He was acquitted of one … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Scope of search, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Strategy under Strickland for defense to admit SW affidavit into evidence

M.D.Ala.: A Franks challenge that appears only to be an attempt to examine the CI fails

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails on recklessness. Moreover, it really is just a desire to cross-examine the CI. “Neal’s request for a Franks hearing also falls short for a separate, independent reason: contrary to the requirements of Franks, Neal’s application for … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: A Franks challenge that appears only to be an attempt to examine the CI fails

D.Or.: Ptf stated 1A retaliation claim that SW for his property was because of his speech

Plaintiff stated a claim that execution of a search warrant for his property and writings was retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights. “Here, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.Or.: Ptf stated 1A retaliation claim that SW for his property was because of his speech

D.Minn.: No 4A claim for seizure of legal papers in prison

There is no Fourth Amendment claim for seizure of legal papers when an inmate was moving within a prison. Smith v. Starr, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139361 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2022). “Following the arrest, however, the agents lawfully knew … Continue reading

Posted in Independent source, Prison and jail searches, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.Minn.: No 4A claim for seizure of legal papers in prison

CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed

“Where ‘a plaintiff claims that excessive force was used multiple times, “the court must segment the incident into its constituent parts and consider the officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity at each step along the way.”’ Wright, 962 F.3d at 865 … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed

DE: Def counsel not ineffective for not forecasting Jones GPS case

“Because the Court will not find trial counsel ineffective for failing to ‘effectively’ raise an issue of first impression [on GPS placement], and because the Court believes that even if he had done so effectively, the issue would not have … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on DE: Def counsel not ineffective for not forecasting Jones GPS case

N.D.Ind.: 2254(d) “unreasonable application” review considered whether correct case law applied

In this 2254, the argument was that the state court’s application of law violated 2254’s “unreasonable” application standard, but it didn’t. The question was whether Michigan v. Long or Arizona v. Gant applies. “In sum, the State courts’ reliance on … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity, Seizure, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: 2254(d) “unreasonable application” review considered whether correct case law applied

NY4: Minor typos in SW application don’t void the warrant

“We reject defendant’s contention that the search warrant for his cell phones was issued without probable cause. According ‘great deference to the issuing [Justice]’ …, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that there was sufficient information in the warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Warrant papers, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NY4: Minor typos in SW application don’t void the warrant

WA: HIPAA violation in seizing medical records by SW required their return

The trial court’s order denying return of patient records taken by search warrant from the petitioner youth services provider failed to comply with HIPAA requirements should have been granted. While the records have been returned and the case is otherwise … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on WA: HIPAA violation in seizing medical records by SW required their return

CA9: Use of def’s suppression hearing testimony in penalty phase not unreasonable application of Simmons

The California Supreme Court’s holding that Simmons did not bar using defendant’s suppression hearing testimony in the death penalty phase of his criminal trial (People v. Ochoa, 19 Cal. 4th 353, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 408, 966 P.2d 442, 464, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Privileges, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA9: Use of def’s suppression hearing testimony in penalty phase not unreasonable application of Simmons