E.D.Mich.: No real expectation of privacy on screened in porch where officers had to go through to main door

“The instant motion to suppress raises the question of whether Defendant Clement Franklin Fuller, III, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the enclosed porch of his leased residence. A police officer passed through the porch to knock on the primary door to the residence. While on the porch, the officer noticed evidence that led to Defendant’s arrest. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion to suppress will be denied because the door to the primary residence was the place that the gentleman’s reasonable expectation of privacy began.” United States v. Fuller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115913 (E.D. Mich. October 7, 2011).

Defendant’s 2255 claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging his consent to search on the ground his consent form was forged was legally frivolous. Defense counsel entertained that contention and hired a handwriting expert to compare and the expert determined it was defendant’s signature. United States v. Gallipeau, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116047 (D. S.C. October 5, 2011).*

“Viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Johnson, we cannot say that the officers’ use of force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law.” While the situation was tense and rapidly evolving, it did not appear that plaintiff was any real threat to the officer’s safety. Johnson v. Carroll, 658 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2011).*