Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress because he would have to admit he owned or possessed the car for standing, and that was contrary to his defense that it wasn’t his drugs. State v. Stein, 2018-Ohio-2345, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 2551 (3d Dist. June 18, 2018).
“The Court disagrees with Defendant’s dismissive characterization of the Magistrate Court’s analysis. Contrary to Defendant’s position, the Magistrate Court correctly focused on the fact that the CI not only provided information but also made a controlled purchase of marijuana from the Defendant at the very location to be searched.” United States v. Nixon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101032 (W.D. Tenn. June 18, 2018).*