CA6: No interlocutory appeal of denial of motion to suppress

There is no interlocutory appeal of denial of a motion to suppress in the federal system. United States v. Cox, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 25677 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2026).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not making a frivolous motion to suppress defendant’s probation search done by law enforcement rather than a PO. Rice v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189335 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 21, 2026).*

There was probable cause for the warrant for defendant’s house with nexus shown. United States v. Martinez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189964 (W.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2026).*

2255 petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failing to file a motion to suppress fails because there was no valid ground to grant any motion to suppress. United States v. Riley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190285 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 24, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Motion to suppress, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.