NY3: It’s not IAC to not listen to the audio of the SW application where there was a motion to suppress for lack of PC

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not listening to the audio of the oral application for the search warrant challenging probable cause. The defense moved to suppress on lack of PC, and it was denied by the trial court and affirmed on the merits of the CI’s information showing probable cause. People v. Brandon, 2015 NY Slip Op 08000, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8101 (3d Dept. Nov. 5, 2015).*

Defendant was a tractor trailer driver who crossed the centerline twice and got pulled over by an officer with a drug dog. Defendant said there was a co-driver behind the curtain in the sleeper, and he retrieved the logbook without opening it. He was excessively nervous and the logbook wasn’t accurate. The trailer doors were not sealed. The load was supposedly perishable, and that meant that the truck should not have stopped at all for any appreciable period of time. There was reasonable suspicion. Sherod v. State, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 630 (Nov. 3, 2015).*

The fact that the officers did not quantify the excess window tinting does not undermine the reasonable suspicion for the stop. At worst, it’s only a reasonable mistake of fact. United States v. Quinones, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148557 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.