The government’s motion to reconsider is denied. It can’t justify the stop under Strieff because “[a]t the time the officer activated his lights and ordered Mullins to approach, he not only lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop, he also lacked any extenuating circumstances that explain (in hindsight) his failure to pursue or seek out a simple consensual encounter with Mullins. Consequently, the Court concludes that, on balance, the factors identified in Strieff do not favor the application of the attenuation doctrine as an exception to the exclusionary rule under these narrow facts.” United States v. Mullins, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42356 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2020).
Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not subpoenaing the CI to the suppression hearing since defense counsel had no way of knowing the CI’s identity. Calmes v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42169 (N.D. Miss. Mar. 11, 2020).*