N.D.Ill.: With arrest in driveway on a fake drug deal, govt fails to show entry into garage was inevitable; cash suppressed

Defendant was handcuffed and questioned in his driveway about a CI’s planned transaction with him that the government controlled. He was handcuffed in his driveway and 10 officers were there. The court finds his statements about the money in his garage were not voluntary, and the seizure of the money was not shown to be inevitable because, the way this fake transaction went down, it was unlikely the officers would have cause to enter the garage without a search warrant. “At best, the agents would have obtained a warrant allowing them to enter the home to interrupt the staged drug transaction, but because that transaction never transpired, the Government cannot show ‘that it would have conducted a lawful search absent the challenged conduct.’ United States v. Pelletier, 700 F.3d 1109, 1116-17 (7th Cir. 2012). Defendant’s motion to suppress the $36,000 must therefore be granted.” United States v. Ramos-Guerrero, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145955 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 28, 2015).*

2255 petitioner’s trial counsel more than adequately argued the search and seizure argument and lost. That doesn’t mean it was deficient. Therefore, he fails on the performance prong of Strickland. On the prejudice prong, what petitioner raises wouldn’t have changed the outcome anyway. Christian v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146985 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 29, 2015).*

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the smell of marijuana was coming from the car. Consent doesn’t matter because the officer had probable cause. State v. Baker, 2015-Ohio-4478, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4367 (5th Dist. Oct. 27, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Attenuation. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.