WA: Defense counsel not ineffective for not forecasting Gant

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not forecasting Gant. State v. Pearsall, 156 Wn. App. 357, 231 P.3d 849 (2010):

At the time of the search and throughout Pearsall’s trial, the United States Supreme Court had not yet issued Gant. There is no basis for us to find ineffective assistance for defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress evidence in anticipation of a change in the law. See Millan, 151 Wn. App. at 502-03 (citing United States v. Fields, 565 F.3d 290, 296 (5th Cir. 2009); State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335-36, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)). In State v. Contrerras, 92 Wn. App. 307, 318-19, 966 P.2d 915 (1998), for example, we refused to reverse a conviction on ineffective assistance grounds when Contrerras could not demonstrate that the trial court would have granted a motion to suppress even if defense counsel had brought such a motion. Such is the case here.

911 call was insufficient for an entry into defendant’s house because there was insufficient showing of exigency of an injury of anybody inside. State v. Ford, 2010 VT 39, 188 Vt. 17, 998 A.2d 684 (2010).

Defendant was standing outside of a grocery store talking first to one man and then another and exchanging telephone numbers. The officer initiated a stop and questioned the defendant and it became a seizure without reasonable suspicion. While the conduct appeared suspicious, it was without reasonable suspicion because it also was legal. Commonwealth v. Hudson, 2010 PA Super 96, 995 A.2d 1253 (2010).*