A lawyer can\u2019t be ineffective for not raising a Fourth Amendment claim where there was no standing. In addition, he can\u2019t be ineffective for not telling the lawyer for the person with standing about a search issue. It wouldn’t even benefit the lawyer’s client. Shelby v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21281 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 7, 2020).<\/p>\n
Despite the officer\u2019s conclusions being included in the affidavit, it still showed probable cause on the totality on the CI\u2019s information. \u201cWhen properly viewing the affidavit as a whole, the affidavit provided the issuing state judge with a substantial basis to find a fair probability that a search of Defendant’s residence would uncover evidence of drug trafficking. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Ingram’s conclusion that the contrary result is reached only by using the prohibited \u2018divide-and-conquer\u2019 approach and viewing each part of the affidavit in isolation. United States v. Christian, 925 F.3d 305, 311 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 588-89 (2018)).\u201d The good faith exception also applied. United States v. Helton, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21433 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A lawyer can\u2019t be ineffective for not raising a Fourth Amendment claim where there was no standing. In addition, he can\u2019t be ineffective for not telling the lawyer for the person with standing about a search issue. It wouldn’t even … Continue reading