CA8: Pro se def’s standby counsel not ineffective at suppression hearing; not counsel’s role

Defendant chose to go pro se at the suppression hearing, grudgingly accepting standby counsel. After the motion to suppress was denied, he claimed ineffective assistance by standby counsel for not doing more. But that’s not standby counsel’s role. United States v. Lemicy, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30000, 2024 WL 4888913 (8th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024).

Defendant’s argument that the warrantless search of his girlfriend’s apartment finding him fails because he was on supervised release, and they were looking for him. The same with the search of his cell phone: it was valid because he was on supervised release. United States v. Robinson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30002 (2d Cir. Nov. 26, 2024).*

Because of factual disputes whether plaintiff was armed when the defendant officer shot him, qualified immunity isn’t appealable. Fact questions remain. Clerkley v. Holcomb, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 29997 (10th Cir. Nov. 26, 2024).*

Not search cases but: After a fire, defendant’s cell phone records were obtained with a warrant and they put the lie to defendant’s version of how she awoke to a fire in her house. State v. Neal, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 525 (Nov. 26, 2024).* After a fight in the front yard, police learn of a Ring camera and get a warrant for it convicting defendant. Marshall v. Commonwealth, 2024 Va. App. LEXIS 685 (Nov. 26, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Probation / Parole search, Qualified immunity, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.