The state relied on the fellow officer rule. “Although there were references to eavesdropping warrants that had been obtained for the defendant’s and her codefendant’s phones, the People inexplicably failed to offer any evidence at the hearing to establish that the unidentified individual who advised the State Troopers to stop the vehicle had an adequate basis of knowledge to conclude that it contained narcotics.” There was no justification shown for the stop. People v. Mortel, 2021 NY Slip Op 04498, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4598 (2d Dept. July 21, 2021) (sentenced Dec. 20, 2016, so 4½ years to appeal and reverse, and that should be an embarrassment to someone in the New York courts).
“So, upon the evidence presented, the question before us is whether an attorney fails to perform an essential duty in failing to investigate unknown and arguably frivolous conflicts of interests as to every presiding judicial officer? We answer that question in the negative. Even if we were to assume counsel breached an essential duty in failing to investigate or challenge the magistrate’s ethical ability to authorize the search warrants, Ruth has failed to explain, let alone show by a preponderance of the evidence, how the result of the proceeding would have been different before a different magistrate. Thus, he has failed to meet his burden to show prejudice.” This was an alleged conflict in issuing the search warrant. Ruth v. State, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 617 (July 21, 2021).*