The arrest of the codefendant inside house permitted a protective sweep. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166347 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 27, 2018).<\/p>\n
\u201cThese nine ineffective assistance of counsel claims are properly evaluated under the Strickland standard, meaning the Court may resolve the claim based on lack of sufficient prejudice without addressing deficiency of performance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697. Mr. Brindley did in fact argue many of these issues (numbers 3, 5, and 9 above), and Petitioner has failed to show that he had a reasonable likelihood of success on the remainder, nor a reasonable probability that they would have changed the outcome of the proceedings. Several of the arguments Petitioner claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise\u2014the assertions that the Fifth Amendment requires uniform response behaviors in all drug-sniffing dogs across the country and uniform canine proficiency tests, and that a dog sniffing the exterior of a car during a lawful traffic stop violates the Fourth Amendment\u2014have no basis in law.\u201d Bentley v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166362 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 27, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The arrest of the codefendant inside house permitted a protective sweep. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166347 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 27, 2018). \u201cThese nine ineffective assistance of counsel claims are properly evaluated under the Strickland standard, meaning … Continue reading