One ground of defendant\u2019s 2255 was that defense counsel didn\u2019t pursue his motion to suppress in the district court as a search incident. It was litigated as a protective sweep, defendant lost, and it was affirmed on appeal. His search incident alternative claim wouldn\u2019t have prevailed. Hollis v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11592 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 25, 2019)*:
\n<\/p>\n
In light of the basis on which the Eleventh Circuit upheld the warrantless sweep-search and seizure\u2014that officers discovered drugs and firearms in open view during a valid protective sweep of the apartment where Hollis was arrested under a valid warrant\u2014Hollis’s unlawful-search-incident-to-arrest argument under Chimel would not have succeeded and would not have resulted in the suppression of the seized evidence. Hollis’s trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective for failing to assert such an argument or to seek a hearing based on this argument. This claim entitles Hollis to no relief.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One ground of defendant\u2019s 2255 was that defense counsel didn\u2019t pursue his motion to suppress in the district court as a search incident. It was litigated as a protective sweep, defendant lost, and it was affirmed on appeal. His search … Continue reading