OH10: Def can’t suppress his assault on officer by claiming entry was illegal

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging under the Fourth Amendment the police entry into the house that led to defendant assaulting an officer. Even if it was a nonconsensual entry, defendant’s crime against the officer was independent of that, so the legality of the entry wouldn’t suppress the officer’s testimony of the assault. State v. Fort, 2016-Ohio-1242, 2016 Ohio App. LEXIS 1337 (10th Dist. March 24, 2016). (Note: In most states, the illegal entry may be arguable justification for the assault to the jury, but it’s never a question of suppressing the defendant’s new crime.)

Defendant consented to a search of his hotel room. (In the prior R&R, the USMJ found that defendant lacked standing, but the DJ disagreed and remanded.) United States v. Aiken, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45606 (D.Me. April 4, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167204 (D. Me. Dec. 5, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Attenuation, Consent, Independent source. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.