AK: Slightly changing search incident argument on appeal and including Gant was changing the issue

Defendant raised a search incident claim about his arrest: “(1) the toiletry bag was not “immediately associated” with his person, and because (2) the search of the bag was not sufficiently contemporaneous with his arrest.” On appeal, however, he raised it differently: “He argues that the search was illegal under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant because he no longer had physical access to the toiletry bag at the time it was searched, and because the police had no reason to believe that the bag contained evidence of his crimes.” That’s changing the argument presented to the trial court. State v. Le, 2015 Alas. App. LEXIS 110 (July 15, 2015).

Defendant’s nervousness did not justify extending his stop for a FST. After he passed, he was free to leave, and then the request for consent was attenuated from the original extended stop. State v. Hogan, 2015 WI 76, 2015 Wisc. LEXIS 348 (July 10, 2015).*

Defendant’s 2255 attack on the alleged IAC for his counsel not challenging his stop was waived by his guilty plea affirming that there was a basis for the stop. Jones v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91757 (W.D.Tex. July 15, 2015).*