E.D.Wash.: Defending on lack of connection to property was best course; no IAC for lack of standing, and if motion made it would have lost on merits, too

Defendant’s counsel wasn’t ineffective: “This Court unequivocally finds that Defendant manifested a deliberate abandonment to any interest in his neighbor’s shed. Counsel was not ineffective by tactically defending the charge by highlighting the absence of positive evidence tying Defendant to the neighbor’s shed. A motion to suppress would not have changed the outcome, as it simply would not have succeeded on this record.” United States v. Birrueta, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153555 (E.D.Wash. Nov. 4, 2016).*

“Here, at time that he pulled Lombard’s truck over, Officer Shock also had a reasonable suspicion that Lombard was involved in narcotics trafficking” based on information collected before the traffic stop. United States v. Lombard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152489 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 3, 2016).*

Defendant’s Franks challenge rejected: “Moreover, whether Defendant possessed one firearm or multiple firearms is immaterial to the probable cause determination, because possession of a firearm by a felon is a crime.” This is not a “substantial preliminary showing” required by Franks. United States v. Bell, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153135 (C.D.Ill. Nov. 4, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.