While officers searched car on specific PC for a weapon and found it, officers were not required to end the search with that. Other evidence could have been found and was. United States v. Casteel, 638 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (S.D. Iowa 2009):<\/p>\n
The Court finds that Agent White’s testimony undercuts any reasonable belief that the Bonneville contained either additional firearms or ammunition because his conclusions were based upon personal interactions with Defendants, which the Court finds far more credible than generic training and experience. The Court, nevertheless, finds that Agent Kessler had probable cause to search the Bonneville, even after finding the two weapons Tiran Casteel bought, because a fair probability existed that paperwork evidencing this crime or other crimes would be found in the car. Tiran Casteel solicited the sale of firearms over the internet, and the Court finds that it would be reasonable to expect Tiran Casteel to print off some of his internet communications, including any communications used to arrange the meeting with Agent White, or even a map containing driving directions, and bring them to the meeting, which would be evidence of the crime. Id. at 178. Likewise, the Government could also reasonably believe that the receipt book used to produce the receipt for Agent White would be located in the Bonneville. Id. at 98, 167. Since this paperwork could have been hidden in either the bag or the box containing the coins, Agent Kessler had probable cause to search these items. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence stemming from the search of the Bonneville because the Court can find no constitutional defect.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Every conceivable search issue was raised on direct appeal, but not the one on post-conviction. “His attorneys’ apparent refusal to raise these arguments on direct appeal, however, only signals to the Court the likelihood that the grounds now asserted were considered to be without merit at the time.” Burman v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65277 (D. Md. July 29, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading