E.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was justified by specific facts

During a protective sweep on specific facts, a gun was seen in plain view. It was not seized, but a consent was obtained for the gun and it was retrieved. The consent was valid, too. “The facts in this case mirror, virtually precisely, the facts in [United States v. Gandia, 276 Fed.Appx. 10 (2d Cir. 2008)], and even more so.” United States v. Aguilar, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23120 (E.D. N.Y. March 8, 2011).*

The officer developed reasonable suspicion after a valid traffic stop, and he called in a drug dog which alerted. This was not a search incident, but a search under the automobile exception. United States v. Riley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23394 (W.D. Mo. February 4, 2011), adopted 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23400 (W.D. Mo. March 8, 2011).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for counseling defendant to plead guilty to get the three points for acceptance of responsibility when the defense was pretty much that the police were in a conspiracy to convict him and no viable motion to suppress existed. Herring v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23657 (S.D. Ga. March 1, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.