S.D.Fla.: IAC claim approached similar to GFE for the defense lawyer under Strickland

Defendant filed a 2255 that defense counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the search of his RV on the curtilage in a child pornography case. The warrant mentioned curtilage. The case law goes both ways, and the court cannot say that a reasonably competent lawyer was ineffective, applying a form of good faith exception analysis: “Ultimately, some of Petitioner’s arguments on the issue of curtilage might be persuasive were this Court hearing the matter as a motion to suppress. However, as stated above, this is a habeas petition, not a Fourth Amendment motion. At this stage, Petitioner has the burden to show that his arguments are so strong that no competent lawyer would have thought otherwise. Petitioner cannot meet this burden with respect to curtilage because potentially viable arguments existed on both sides.” Alternatively, however, the automobile exception would have applied to the RV because it wasn’t set up as parked living quarters. Spriggs v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33164 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.