Defendant was already parked, so he wasn\u2019t stopped, and the officer\u2019s use of the emergency lights on his police car are not determinative of whether there was a \u201cstop.\u201d There was no display of weapons, touching of defendant, no coercive behavior. United States v. Cook, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180477 (D. Minn. November 17, 2014).<\/p>\n
There was a factual dispute whether officers left a copy of the search warrant at the time of the search. They say they did; defendant says they didn\u2019t. That\u2019s hardly a violation of the Fourth Amendment even though Rule 41 requires it, even if the court credits defendant, which it doesn\u2019t. How was defendant prejudiced? He doesn\u2019t say. Therefore, it can\u2019t be IAC for defense counsel to not have pursued the issue. United States v. Fernandez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5594 (E.D. Wash. January 14, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Since the search of defendant\u2019s property was granted by his mother\u2019s consent [without full explanation], any suppression motion would have been denied and there can\u2019t be IAC. State v. Riley<\/a>, 2015-Ohio-94, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 81 (7th Dist. January 2, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was already parked, so he wasn\u2019t stopped, and the officer\u2019s use of the emergency lights on his police car are not determinative of whether there was a \u201cstop.\u201d There was no display of weapons, touching of defendant, no coercive … Continue reading