D.Conn.: Failure to challenge lack of announcement in federal court was futile and not ineffective assistance

“First, Mr. Smith cannot establish prejudice from his attorney failing to raise the alleged violation of the knock-and-announce requirement as ‘the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence discovered in the ensuing search.’ United States v. Acosta, 502 F.3d 54, 56 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 599 (2006)). [¶] Second, Mr. Smith failed to provide the Court with any evidence from which it could determine that his counsel’s decision to not file a motion to suppress was unreasonable.” Smith v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108439 (D. Conn. June 19, 2024).*

“After speaking with Mr. Wood regarding the length of his trip, his plan to drive back to Dallas after driving over seven hours, only stopping to get gas and only staying at his friend’s house for thirty minutes, and his inability to provide the names of his two passengers, Sergeant Morgan acquired reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to request a canine to sniff the vehicle for contraband.” State v. Diaz, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1018 (La. App. 1 Cir. June 3, 2024).*

Heck barred this § 1983 case: “Pyles’s version of the facts necessarily implies the invalidity of his conviction because he asserts that he was not guilty of the offense (and that Daily therefore lacked probable cause to arrest).” Pyles v. Daily, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14924 (7th Cir. June 20, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Knock and announce, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.