D.Alaska: It was litigation strategy to not file a motion to suppress and cut def’s losses

It was litigation strategy to not file a motion to suppress and cut defendant’s losses. No ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Davis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24036 (D. Alaska Jan. 8, 2025).*

The cell phone warrant was sufficiently particular and based on probable cause. The geolocation claim is waived for not having been raised below. Civil v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 50 (Feb. 12, 2025).*

“Having found that a custom or policy has been alleged, the question is whether Lusk has sufficiently alleged unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court finds that he has. Although at times inartfully pled, Lusk appears to assert that the City engaged in an unlawful search of his property, including of the Pickup that his brother lawfully purchased at a City auction, which then gave way to an unlawful seizure that resulted in him spending forty hours in jail for being in possession of a vehicle that lawfully belonged to him, before being arrested again later for the same alleged crime. Moreover, Lusk alleges that, although the charges were eventually dropped against him after he provided documentation that the Pickup was lawfully his, Defendants have refused to return the Pickup to him. Viewing the allegations in a light most favorable to Lusk, he has sufficiently alleged claims for unlawful search and seizure. The City’s Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amendment claim is therefore DENIED.” Lusk v. City of Memphis, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24493 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 11, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Seizure, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.