“Watson’s unsubstantiated ‘belief’ that the warrants were forged does not raise the specter of a constitutional violation, and she offers nothing else in support of this claim. Furthermore, her claim in Ground Three that counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he did not file a motion to suppress the evidence against her likewise does not pass muster because she cannot show prejudice.” United States v. Watson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51711 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2020).*
No COA for a 2254 habeas Fourth Amendment claim: “Smith’s first two claims raised Fourth Amendment violations, which are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings where the State provided an avenue to present the claims in state court. Good v. Berghuis, 729 F.3d 636, 639 (6th Cir. 2013). Moreover, the district court noted that, even if the claims were reviewable, they lacked merit. Essentially, Smith claimed that his arrest was illegal because the police officer wrote the wrong date, by two days, in his report, and over-estimated the age of the victim. Nevertheless, given the victim’s identification of Smith and the videos of the crime, there was sufficient evidence to support Smith’s arrest. Smith also argued that his arraignment was delayed, but the record showed that he was arrested for a parole violation, not for this crime, and therefore no requirement for a timely arraignment was violated.” Smith v. Christiansen, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9374 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2020).