MN: CSLI obtained by state statute was valid because of PC showing; it also complied with Carpenter

Defendant’s CSLI was obtained under a state statute that had a probable cause requirement, and the state showed it. There were two statutes involved, and the wrong one was cited, but the state nonetheless met the standards of both. The court finds the statutes satisfied. Carpenter was also complied with because there was a probable cause finding. State v. Harvey, 2019 Minn. LEXIS 533 (Aug. 28, 2019).

Defendant’s 2255 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress is rejected as belied by the record. “In light of Hill’s sworn statements during the Rule 11 proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances, Hill’s instant statements to the contrary are ‘palpably incredible.’ Lemaster, 403 F.3d at 222 (citation omitted).” Moreover, he couldn’t be prejudiced because it would be harmless on the totality. United States v. Hill, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145940 (E.D. Va. Aug. 28, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.