The search warrant authorized a search of a safe in a house even though the room it was in wasn\u2019t occupied by the target of the search. The search warrant wasn\u2019t stale because the drug activities it refers to were ongoing. United States v. Jordan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166158 (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant made a prima facie ineffective assistance of counsel claim for defense counsel not objecting to the voluntariness of the confession and stipulating it was admissible, ostensibly because defense counsel didn\u2019t want to lose credibility in the eyes of the trial judge. Khalil-Alsalaami v. State<\/a>, 2020 Kan. LEXIS 93 (Sept. 11, 2020).* The dissent argues that the merits of the voluntariness claim should be decided too if it can be rather than remand as in Fourth Amendment cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defendant\u2019s objection to the R&R is overruled because he doesn\u2019t show that the finding of consent to search his cell phone was erroneous. United States v. Mendez-Bernal, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166142 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 11, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The search warrant authorized a search of a safe in a house even though the room it was in wasn\u2019t occupied by the target of the search. The search warrant wasn\u2019t stale because the drug activities it refers to were … Continue reading