Defendant was handcuffed and questioned in his driveway about a CI\u2019s planned transaction with him that the government controlled. He was handcuffed in his driveway and 10 officers were there. The court finds his statements about the money in his garage were not voluntary, and the seizure of the money was not shown to be inevitable because, the way this fake transaction went down, it was unlikely the officers would have cause to enter the garage without a search warrant. \u201cAt best, the agents would have obtained a warrant allowing them to enter the home to interrupt the staged drug transaction, but because that transaction never transpired, the Government cannot show \u2018that it would have conducted a lawful search absent the challenged conduct.\u2019 United States v. Pelletier, 700 F.3d 1109, 1116-17 (7th Cir. 2012). Defendant’s motion to suppress the $36,000 must therefore be granted.\u201d United States v. Ramos-Guerrero, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145955 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 28, 2015).*<\/p>\n
2255 petitioner\u2019s trial counsel more than adequately argued the search and seizure argument and lost. That doesn\u2019t mean it was deficient. Therefore, he fails on the performance prong of Strickland. On the prejudice prong, what petitioner raises wouldn\u2019t have changed the outcome anyway. Christian v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146985 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 29, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and the smell of marijuana was coming from the car. Consent doesn\u2019t matter because the officer had probable cause. State v. Baker<\/a>, 2015-Ohio-4478, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4367 (5th Dist. Oct. 27, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant was handcuffed and questioned in his driveway about a CI\u2019s planned transaction with him that the government controlled. He was handcuffed in his driveway and 10 officers were there. The court finds his statements about the money in his … Continue reading