D.Ariz.: 4A IAC claim fails for failing to show how outcome would change and because 4A wasn’t violated

“Movant argues that the warrantless search and seizure of the victim’s blood-stained clothing violated his Fourth Amendment rights and that his trial counsel’s failure to challenge the search and seizure was ineffective assistance because ‘there exists more than a reasonable probability that the result of the proceedings would have been different[.]’ (Doc. 40 at 39) Movant fails to explain how the seizure and use at trial of the victim’s bloodstained clothing would likely have altered the outcome of his trial.” More to the point, the search was lawful. [And how would he have standing in the clothing of his victim?] United States v. Sloan, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130969 (D. Ariz. July 13, 2021).

State law is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis. But, there’s nothing for the state judge issuing the search warrant to conclude that a couple of things maybe showing personal use rises to the level of evidence of drug trafficking on the premises. However, the warrant was severable, and there was probable cause to search for a weapon possessed by a felon, and that supported a plain view. Finally, the good faith exception saves the warrant application because it was not bare bones. United States v. Astorga, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130703 (D. N.M. July 13, 2021).*