\u201cPetitioner already presented his suppression argument to the Eleventh Circuit, and it was rejected. He now attempts to relitigate the claim by cloaking it in an ineffective assistance claim. However, Petitioner fails to establish Mr. Crowder’s decision not to pursue a suppression motion was a choice no competent counsel would have made.\u201d Mouzon v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178057 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 28, 2020).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s credibility challenge is for the trial court, not the court of appeals. State v. Toy<\/a>, 2020-Ohio-4619, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3475 (9th Dist. Sept. 28, 2020).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHere, the warrantless search of the bookbag — a container located within Clark’s automobile — did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. First, Clark’s vehicle was readily mobile as evidenced by Officer Carswell following the vehicle from one street to the next while it was driven. Second, Officer Carswell had probable cause to believe a quantity of marijuana capable of producing the strong odor he detected was inside the car because he smelled it when Clark opened the door to his car. \u2026 Accordingly, Officer Carswell’s warrantless search of Clark’s bookbag was permissible and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.\u201d United States v. Clark, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177685 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 4, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cPetitioner already presented his suppression argument to the Eleventh Circuit, and it was rejected. He now attempts to relitigate the claim by cloaking it in an ineffective assistance claim. However, Petitioner fails to establish Mr. Crowder’s decision not to pursue … Continue reading