LA: Trial counsel not ineffective for not moving to suppress search that was clearly based on exigency

Trial counsel was not ineffective for not pursuing an exigency-based search issue where police entered after hearing cries for help when the grandfather of missing children entered and found blood on the floor. A suppression motion would have lost. State v. Hebert, 2015 La. LEXIS 1972 (October 2, 2015).

Defendant was involved in a car theft and the owner gave chase and a gun was waved. The police came to defendant about it, and he consented to a search of his home for the weapon. He was not in custody at the time of consent. United States v. Brown, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17204 (3d Cir. September 30, 2015).*

The record shows that defendant’s girlfriend had apparent authority to consent, even if not actual authority, yet doesn’t tell us what it is. United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17137 (4th Cir. September 29, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Consent, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.