OH11: Defendant’s admitting she consented to search at trial precluded IAC claim for not challenging consent

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging defendant’s consent when she testified at trial that she consented to the search. State v. Driscol, 2014-Ohio-5608, 2014 Ohio App. LEXIS 5436 (11th Dist. December 22, 2014).

Defendant’s prior DUI convictions weren’t exigent circumstances to dispense with a search warrant for blood. Lloyd v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 13691 (Tex. App. – Dallas December 22, 2014).*

The trial court and court of appeals erred in concluding that there was no fair probability that drugs would be found at defendant’s house on the totality of circumstances. “We reach this conclusion after acknowledging that independently each fact set forth in the search warrant affidavit is merely suspicious, but the totality of the circumstances—namely, the numerous tips indicating drug activity was probably present at 609 A and the subsequent surveillance of 609 A during which seemingly drug-related behavior was observed—distinguishes this case from Gentile. Likewise, we note that our decision today is based, in part, on the uncertainty as to the standard applied to review the magistrate’s probable cause determination. See Kinloch, Op. No. 2012-UP-432 (S.C. Ct. App. filed July 18, 2012) (reciting, erroneously, ‘clear error’ as the standard by which it was reviewing the trial judge’s decision).” State v. Kinloch, 2014 S.C. LEXIS 547 (December 23, 2014).*