Defense counsel was not ineffective for not moving to suppress the search of defendant\u2019s property for evidence of bank robbery where an unsigned copy was left and not shown to defendant before the search was done. Even if the facts alleged were true, these are not violations of the Fourth Amendment or Rule 41. United States v. Askew, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8581 (W.D. Pa. February 2, 2010).*<\/p>\n
The evidence supports the USMJ\u2019s conclusion that defendant\u2019s consent was voluntary. United States v. Romero, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8286 (D. Neb. February 1, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s IAC claim for not challenging a murder defendant\u2019s arrest on an Air Reserve base in unicorporated Cobb count failed where the arrest was not shown to be unlawful in the first place. Devega v. State, 286 Ga. 448, 689 S.E.2d 293 (2010).*<\/p>\n
Questioning a motorist and passengers about their immigration status was brief and did not turn an otherwise valid stop into an unreasonable detention. Their inability to speak English and produce any identification created at least reasonable suspicion they were illegal aliens. \u201cIn any event, the law was not and is not now clearly established, such that Chabot should have known that he could not investigate further.\u201d It was objectively reasonable at the time for the officer to believe he needed to investigate further, and the officer had qualified immunity. Estrada v. State of Rhode Island<\/a>, No. 09-1149 (1st Cir. February 4, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading