E.D.Va.: IAC claim for illegal search denied because it lacked specifics

“‘Ellis submits that some of the evidence seized were [sic] so done in violation of his Fourth Amendment right[s] against unreasonable search and seizure.’ (Mem. Supp. § 2255 Mot. 6-7.) Ellis supplies no basis upon which counsel could have filed a suppression motion. Thus, Ellis’s conclusory claim fails to state claims for relief. See Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 19, 83 S. Ct. 1068, 10 L. Ed. 2d 148 (1963) (finding denial of habeas action appropriate where it ‘stated only bald legal conclusions with no supporting factual allegations’).” United States v. Ellis, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165685 (E.D. Va. November 25, 2014).

A 911 call about a stabbing on an Indian reservation brought local officers, and they had exigent circumstances for the entry based on the call and observations of bloody footprints in the snow outside the house. United States v. Youngbear, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165698 (N.D. Iowa November 25, 2014).*

Probable cause supported issuance of the search warrant for defendant’s house based on two CIs. Both said they used meth with defendant there in the previous couple of days, and one tested positive for meth. Since the warrant was properly issued, the finding of a silencer in plain view meant it could be seized. United States v. Housholder, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164831 (D. Kan. November 25, 2014).*

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.