{"id":3662,"date":"2010-05-24T12:52:11","date_gmt":"2009-12-23T01:07:22","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-12-22T08:11:27","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3662","title":{"rendered":"CA2: Immediate police show-up after a stabbing was not unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"

A police show-up of suspects immediately after a stabbing was reasonable under the totality of circumstances. Therefore, defense counsel was not ineffective for not raising the challenge. Palacios v. Burge<\/a>, 589 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2009):<\/p>\n

Rather than supporting a “good Fourth Amendment claim,” Kimmelman<\/a>, 477 U.S. at 382, the “totality of the circumstances,” Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417, and the “balance [of] privacy-related and law enforcement-related concerns,” McArthur<\/a>, 531 U.S. at 331, undermine Palacios’s claim that the police show-up, following the Djukanovic and Kolenovic stabbings, violated Palacios’s Fourth Amendment rights and tainted his subsequent arrest and confession. Accordingly, we conclude that Palacios has not shown that counsel’s decision not to pursue a Fourth Amendment challenge respecting the show-up rose to the level of “incompetence” as “unreasonable under prevailing professional norms” and “not sound strategy.” Kimmelman<\/a>, 477 U.S. at 381; see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Defendant was subjected to a Terry stop and frisk and he was put on the back of the police car. His car was subjected to a frisk, too, and it was valid because he would be shortly released and could reenter the car and gain access to weapons. United States v. Griffin<\/a>, 589 F.3d 148 (4th Cir. 2009) (2-1).*<\/p>\n

Defendant\u2019s furtive movement in the car he was a passenger in was sufficient for a frisk of the car. (The government waived any standing argument by not raising it in the district court.) United States v. Lightbourn<\/a>, 357 Fed. Appx. 259 (11th Cir. 2009) (unpublished), cert. den. 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4117 (U.S., May 17, 2010).*<\/p>\n

Informal juvenile probation could not impose a drug testing condition without statutory authority. Derick B. v. San Diego County Superior Court<\/a>, 180 Cal. App. 4th 295, 102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 634 (4th Dist. 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3662","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3662\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}