Defendant wasn\u2019t Mirandized, but he consented to a search of his cell phone. He\u2019d been arrested six times and been in prison, so it\u2019s a reasonable inference that he knew about his right to refuse consent. While he had been \u201cdiagnosed with multiple mental disorders,\u201d there is no evidence any of that impaired his thinking. United States v. Thorne, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27647 (N.D. Iowa March 3, 2014), adopted 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37133 (N.D. Iowa March 21, 2014).<\/p>\n
In a suppression of a confession case, defense counsel filed the motion late but it was heard, and defendant had to make a choice between a plea offer and the suppression hearing. Since there is no constitutional right to a plea offer, the defendant wasn\u2019t prejudiced. Also, while defense counsel could have done a better job at the hearing, it wasn\u2019t constitutionally deficient performance. State v. Morris<\/a>, 2014 Kan. LEXIS 108 (March 7, 2014).<\/p>\n Defendant consented to a search of his house, and the government proved it. The police report didn\u2019t mention the word \u201cconsent,\u201d but that\u2019s what it all meant. United States v. Brown, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29313 (E.D. Mich. March 7, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading