W.D.Wash.: No 2255 discovery of SW materials based on mere speculation

In this 2255, petitioner doesn’t get discovery of his search warrant materials. “The Government responds that Wilson ‘has failed to provide good cause as to why he is entitled to the materials that he requests’ and instead, he ‘only speculates and makes general arguments that the requested [documents] ‘may’ have a relevance to his § 2255 motion.’ … Again, Wilson’s motion fails to show good cause for discovery as required by Rule 6. Instead, he speculates that the requested categories of documents ‘may’ be relevant to his motion … which is insufficient. Accordingly, this motion is denied.” Wilson v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197596 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 1, 2026).

A prison gave information that defendant was trafficking drugs. A tracking warrant was obtained for his vehicle. While following it, defendant was stopped for a traffic offense and he had meth in the front seat. The tracking warrant was issued with probable cause, and the good faith exception applied in any event. United States v. Ray, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197147 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 1, 2026).*

“[T]he Court finds that none of the alleged statements or omissions Irizarry has identified are false, misleading, or evince reckless disregard on the part of Officer Rasile. Thus, the Court need not engage in the exercise of analyzing a hypothetical corrected affidavit.” United States v. Irizarry, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197354 (D. Conn. Sep. 1, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Discovery, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Neutral and detached magistrate. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.