Defendant was arrested at his house, and his wife later consented to entry to seize a gun. The officers\u2019 threat to get a search warrant if she didn\u2019t consent was genuine and there was probable cause to get a search warrant. United States v. Polnitz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70324 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 26, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was the target of a search of another\u2019s cell phone to recover text messages that defendant sent. He had no standing to challenge the search of the cell phone. United States v. Bereznak, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70961 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defendant claimed a page was missing from the arrest complaint and that was a fraud on the court. \u201cThe alleged document would not be sufficient under AEDPA to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying offense. See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244(b)(2). And insofar as Wardlaw claims that law enforcement obtained a search warrant through false statements, this claim was already addressed in his original habeas proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244(b)(1).\u201d Successor petition denied. In re Wardlaw, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10744 (6th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant was arrested at his house, and his wife later consented to entry to seize a gun. The officers\u2019 threat to get a search warrant if she didn\u2019t consent was genuine and there was probable cause to get a search … Continue reading