NY2: SW for person and house didn’t permit search of cars out front

The search warrant was for defendant’s person and his house. The police also searched two cars on the premises. The court finds the cars outside the warrant and suppresses them. People v. Gordon, 2019 NY Slip Op 00901, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 874 (2d Dept. Feb. 6, 2019).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for counseling defendant to consent to a search. [As almost impossible as that would be to show an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,] The police also had a search warrant. Thus, defense counsel’s advising consent wasn’t prejudicial. Tilley v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19132 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 6, 2019).*

“The Court concludes that Defendant was lawfully detained, and the detention ‘last[ed] no longer than [was] necessary to effectuate its purpose.’” He also consented to a search, and that’s another ground to sustain the search. United States v. Segoviano, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17757 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Overseizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.