IL: To argue defense counsel was ineffective for not arguing “seizure” instead of “search” is frivolous here

Defendant claimed his counsel was ineffective for not arguing the seizure was unreasonable rather than the search. That’s frivolous. People v. Lee, 2018 IL App (3d) 160100, 2018 Ill. App. LEXIS 569 (Aug. 1, 2018). [I had the same argument made against me after losing United States v. Shelton, 337 F.3d 529 (5th Cir. 2003), post-conviction denied 2007 WL 4097302 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 7, 2007).]

Defendant conceded the patdown was justified under Terry. Thus, plain feel supported the seizure from his pocket. Alternatively, the officer had consent. The search of the car under the automobile exception was with probable cause and defendant lacked standing, as the district court found. He had to challenge both grounds to appeal. State v. Ahmetovic, 2018 Iowa App. LEXIS 681 (Aug. 1, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.