D.Guam: 4A standing is not jurisdictional, so the court can go to GFE without deciding PC

Standing to contest a search and seizure issue is not jurisdictional, so the court doesn’t have to decide standing. Going to the merits, there was probable cause for the search warrant for the package arriving by mail, and the delay in getting the warrant was reasonable and explained in court at the suppression hearing. Similarly, the nine-day delay in getting the search warrant for defendant’s phone was reasonable because he was in custody and wouldn’t have possessed it anyway. United States v. Mesa, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204662 (D. Guam Nov. 21, 2019).

“Appellant consented to the frisk. Where an individual voluntarily consents to a search, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated. Katz v United States, … n.22 …. Appellant responded with a clear and unequivocal ‘sure’ when the TPD officers asked to frisk him, and the record supports that his consent ‘was given “freely and voluntarily.”’” United States v. Brooks, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35426 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2019).*

Defense counsel raised multiple search claims at trial but only appealed one. Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires a remand for an evidentiary hearing. Peden v. State, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 757 (Nov. 26, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.