A 2255 petitioner litigated his motion to suppress in the original criminal case, and he sought to reopen it for post-conviction. The issue cannot be relitigated, and there was sufficient evidence without the product of the search to convict. Stevenson v. United States, 594 F. Supp. 2d 695 (N.D. W.Va. 2009).*<\/p>\n
“‘[A]ny\/all drugs, contraban[d] or items of evidence connected to but not limited to the (scales, pipes, baggies, cash, weapons, documents, etc.) use, [sale], and\/or storage of these type items’ [is not] so lacking in specificity as to cause the warrant to be constitutionally defective.” Ex parte Jenkins<\/a>, 26 So. 3d 464 (Ala. 2009), aff’g State v. Jenkins, 26 So. 3d 458 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).<\/p>\n Defendant’s stop was justified by crossing the centerline by a half a car width, at least by reasonable suspicion. Bracken v. State<\/a>, 282 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. App. \u2014 Ft. Worth 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading