Defendant\u2019s search was in 2011, and he raised Rodriguez in his 2255. First, it\u2019s denied because defendant was on notice of the issue because it said it merely applied Caballes. [Also, it was overturning the Eighth Circuit\u2019s de minimus rule which was inconsistent with everything.] He was well on notice of the issue. Second, Stone v. Powell denies a post-conviction litigant from relitigating a search issue. Wilson v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46313 (D.Md. April 6, 2016).<\/p>\n
Grant of motion to suppress affirmed on trial judge\u2019s credibility determination. Dissent sees justification for the stop on the record not argued by the parties. State v. Jennings<\/a>, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5298 (Fla. 4th DCA April 6, 2016) (2-1).*<\/p>\n A recall petition was filed alleging misfeasance by a local public official that could lead to improper seizures of allegedly dilapidated mobile homes in the city. The fact it could lead to that is not yet misfeasance. Even if that happened later, that doesn\u2019t mean that the proposed ordinance was misfeasance. Gibson v. Kesterson, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5266 (Fla. 1st DCA April 6, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s search was in 2011, and he raised Rodriguez in his 2255. First, it\u2019s denied because defendant was on notice of the issue because it said it merely applied Caballes. [Also, it was overturning the Eighth Circuit\u2019s de minimus rule … Continue reading