DE: SW materials reviewed on PCR to find no motion to suppress would be granted

Defendant was charged with rape of his daughter occurring daily for years. Defense counsel saw no reason to file a motion to suppress the search warrants for the house for the vibrator the victim described was used on her. Reviewing the search warrant materials in the post-conviction proceeding, no motion to suppress would have been successful. State v. Hunter, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 645 (Sept. 29, 2017).

Defendant moves to suppress a tax enforcement summons but doesn’t identify what he wanted suppressed. Suppression requires some affirmative misrepresentation, but none is alleged. United States v. Orrock, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205021 (D. Nev. Oct. 4, 2017).*

Plaintiff filed FOIA requests over StringRay devices and ultimately prevailed. The court declines to award attorneys fees. Rudenberg v. Chief Deputy Attorney General, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 656 (Dec. 8, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Ineffective assistance, Stingray / Hailstorm. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.