NY Queens: Conflict of laws: Federal SW led to state court prosecution, and it is reviewed under state law

The warrant was issued by a U.S. Magistrate Judge, but it is reviewed under New York law which retained Aguilar/Spinelli, and it meets the test. People v. Mercado, 2023 NY Slip Op 23195, 2023 NYLJ LEXIS 1655, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3214 (Queens Co. July 3, 2023). (It just worked out that way here. Another state court may say that the warrant is reviewed under the Fourth Amendment and not state law.)

“Trial counsel’s advice to not pursue a motion to suppress based on Petitioner’s contorted view of the scope of consent, therefore, is best seen as strategic in nature.” He also doesn’t show he would have gone to trial instead. Nelson v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115717 (D.N.M. July 6, 2023).*

Defendant doesn’t allege or show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched under a warrant, even after the government challenged the lack of standing. Even if he had standing, the warrant was issued with probable cause. United States v. Bell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115843 (E.D. Wis. May 19, 2023),* adopted 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114748 (E.D. Wis. July 5, 2023).*

One statement was suppressed, and it was removed from the application for the warrant, and probable cause still remained. “Even if the benign snippet of suppressed information in the search warrant application somehow was necessary to establish probable cause, Leon’s good faith exception applies.” United States v. Green, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116176 (M.D.Ga. July 6, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Conflict of laws, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause, Standing, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.