W.D.Pa.: Retaining new counsel and attempting to reopen suppression hearing under guise of IAC claim rejected

Defendant retained new counsel and moved to reopen his suppression hearing alleging former counsel was ineffective for not raising a better argument. The motion is denied because this claim doesn’t satisfy the standard for reopening. The issue was available and waived. United States v. Somerville, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144934 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2019), prior opinion, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47485 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2019).

HSI installed GPS on a package in Queens (E.D.N.Y.) and it was followed to and delivered in the Bronx (S.D.N.Y.). Assuming there was a technical violation of Rule 41, the court doesn’t find that alone enough to suppress under Herring because it’s certain the officers were acting in good faith at all times. United States v. Rico, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144647 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 26, 2019).*

This entry was posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Good faith exception, GPS / Tracking Data, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.