DE: Def didn’t controvert state’s affidavits responding to motion to suppress; denied

The state’s affidavits filed in response to the motion to suppress say the search was by consent, but the defense didn’t controvert. Without there being a factual dispute, no hearing is required on the motion to suppress, and it’s a question of law. State v. Saunders, 2014 Del. Super. LEXIS 539 (August 6, 2014).

Based on controlled purchases and then information from a CI, officers had probable cause to believe that methamphetamine was in the backpack put into defendant’s SUV. A prior controlled delivery went down just like this one was. United States v. Wolfgramm, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145877 (D. Haw. October 10, 2014).*

Defense counsel’s failure to challenge GPS tracking in 2008 was based on existing authority at the time, and any motion to suppress would have been denied. Therefore, defense counsel was not ineffective. United States v. Valdez, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144034 (D. Idaho October 6, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Consent, GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.