Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search of defendant\u2019s packages that arrived at Memphis customs from Nigeria because it was a valid border search. Harkey v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36960 (N.D. Tex. February 26, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for withdrawing motion to suppress that would not have won. The court of appeals erred in concluding defendant would have won on the motion, an apparent authority to consent issue. People v. Givens<\/a>, 384 Ill. App. 3d 101, 892 N.E.2d 1098 (2008). People v. Givens<\/a>, 237 Ill. 2d 311, 934 N.E.2d 470 (2010).*<\/p>\n Defendant had no standing in the car he was arrested in as a passenger. People v. Johnson<\/a>, 237 Ill. 2d 81, 927 N.E.2d 1179 (2010), affg People v. Johnson<\/a>, 387 Ill. App. 3d 780, 327 Ill. Dec. 127, 901 N.E.2d 455 (2009) (posted here<\/a>):<\/p>\n Defendant does not argue before this court that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in Thomas’s vehicle, and we find that the record would not support such an argument. Defendant had been a passenger in the vehicle, and no evidence in the record suggests that defendant had any ownership or possessory interest in the vehicle. Similarly, defendant failed to provide any evidence that he had previously used the vehicle, that he could control others’ use of the property, or that he had any subjective expectation of privacy in the vehicle. On this record, we are compelled to conclude that defendant had no legitimate expectation of privacy in Thomas’s vehicle, and he therefore may not challenge the search of the vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading