CA9: Facial challenge to housing inspection ordinance fails because there is an administrative warrant provision

Plaintiffs’ facial challenge to Los Angeles’ housing inspection ordinance fails because it isn’t unconstitutional in all applications. An administrative warrant provision is provided for. Garris v. City of Los Angeles, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020).

“Here, Petitioner concedes that his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 (search) argument [in his 2255] ‘is fruitless’ and he wishes to withdraw his motion.” United States v. Yamada, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46237 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 17, 2020).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress because defendant lacked any standing at all in the car he was in. Johnson v. State, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 185 (Mar. 16, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Ineffective assistance, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.