The right to testify at a trial doesn’t also mean that a defendant has a constitutional right to testify at a suppression hearing. Here, defendant wasn’t even present at the suppression hearing. The court finds that defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for proceeding without him. Also, defense counsel was not ineffective for admitting that defendant consented to the search. Instead, he did challenge consent. Witten v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37719 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2019).
“Since the information in the application was not stale and the citizen informant was reliable, we find ‘a person of reasonable prudence would believe a crime was committed on the premises to be searched or evidence of a crime could be located there.’” State v. Sallis, 2019 Iowa App. LEXIS 272 (Mar. 6, 2019).*