Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress a third party consent search that would have failed. Cowans v. Bagley, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83040 (S.D. Ohio September 30, 2008)* (one issue in a 324 page habeas denial in a death case).<\/p>\n
Entry into third party’s property for a parole search for a person who did not live there stated a claim for relief in a civil case. Perez v. City of Placerville, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83172 (E.D. Cal. September 9, 2008):<\/p>\n
Ultimately, nothing in the law justifies the entry into and search of a third person’s house to search for a parolee. Cuevas v. De Roco, 531 F.3d 726, 2008 WL 2552572, *4 (9th Cir. 2008). The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches of a person’s home is not diminished by the mere presence of a guest in the home. Id. Therefore, officers must be “reasonably sure that they are at the right house” before relying on a parolee’s search condition to search a person’s home. Motley, 432 F.3d at 1079 (emphasis in original). A parole condition indicates “only the parolee’s acquiescence to a warrantless search of his own residence.” Id. (emphasis added).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading