{"id":4226,"date":"2011-08-07T13:16:54","date_gmt":"2010-05-27T07:45:14","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-05-27T07:45:14","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4226","title":{"rendered":"WA: Defense counsel not ineffective for not forecasting <em>Gant<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defense counsel was not ineffective for not forecasting Gant. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.wa.gov\/opinions\/pdf\/38659-3.10.doc.pdf\">State v. Pearsall<\/a>, 156 Wn. App. 357, 231 P.3d 849 (2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>At the time of the search and throughout Pearsall&#8217;s trial, the United States Supreme Court had not yet issued Gant. There is no basis for us to find ineffective assistance for defense counsel&#8217;s failure to move to suppress evidence in anticipation of a change in the law. See Millan, 151 Wn. App. at 502-03 (citing United States v. Fields, 565 F.3d 290, 296 (5th Cir. 2009); State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335-36, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995)). In State v. Contrerras, 92 Wn. App. 307, 318-19, 966 P.2d 915 (1998), for example, we refused to reverse a conviction on ineffective assistance grounds when Contrerras could not demonstrate that the trial court would have granted a motion to suppress even if defense counsel had brought such a motion. Such is the case here.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>911 call was insufficient for an entry into defendant&#8217;s house because there was insufficient showing of exigency of an injury of anybody inside. <a href=\"http:\/\/info.libraries.vermont.gov\/supct\/current\/op2008-490.html\">State v. Ford<\/a>, 2010 VT 39, 188 Vt. 17, 998 A.2d 684 (2010).<\/p>\n<p>Defendant was standing outside of a grocery store talking first to one man and then another and exchanging telephone numbers. The officer initiated a stop and questioned the defendant and it became a seizure without reasonable suspicion. While the conduct appeared suspicious, it was without reasonable suspicion because it also was legal. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacourts.us\/OpPosting\/Superior\/out\/A26006_09.pdf\">Commonwealth v. Hudson<\/a>, 2010 PA Super 96, 995 A.2d 1253 (2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4226\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-4226","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4226","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=4226"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4226\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}