CT: IAC in cell phone search decided on lack of prejudice, not the merits

Defendant was convicted of accessory to murder. He claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the 2013 search of his cell phone. Police sought a warrant for the phone, and the DA prepared it. While the papers were on the way to the judge, the phone was plugged into the extraction device, and it would have taken hours. There was nothing removed from the phone anyone saw by the time the warrant was signed by the judge. Significantly, trial counsel wasn’t called as a witness, so the court holds “We are thus required affirmatively to contemplate whether any objectively reasonable strategy existed for not filing a motion to suppress.” As for prejudice, it would be harmless because the other phone in the calls and text was also seized and information extracted. Thus, it was coming in anyway; therefore, no prejudice. Soyini v. Comm’r of Corr., 2023 Conn. App. LEXIS 265 (Nov. 21, 2023). [This could have been decided on inevitable discovery, but went down as no Strickland prejudice and it was probably strategy. It would have been way better for the court to have decided this on the merits of the search and be done with it.]

Police came to a duplex looking for a murder suspect. They knocked at the door and it was opened. They came into the vestibule, saw the man they wanted and went in for him. The entry was without proper consent or a warrant. People v. Cuencas, 2023 NY Slip Op 05974, 2023 N.Y. LEXIS 1893 (Nov. 21, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Consent, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.