\u201cMr. Ryan also alleges that there wasn’t any \u2018adversarial pursuit of the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy can not be invalidated simply because a person’s right to want to be private evidences unlawful activity because the person does not want to be monitored 24\/7 (also the expectation of privacy in one’s home).\u2019 The court can’t tell from Mr. Ryan’s allegation what Fourth Amendment issue he believes counsel should’ve raised or how it would’ve changed the outcome of trial, so this claim isn’t grounds for relief.\u201d Thus, no IAC. Ryan v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1048 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 5, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\u2019s no showing that the officers extended the stop just to conduct a search. \u201cAlternatively, the Court finds that Trooper McGill had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to allow for the free air dog sniff.\u201d United States v. Goins, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1118 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 5, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cMr. Ryan also alleges that there wasn’t any \u2018adversarial pursuit of the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy can not be invalidated simply because a person’s right to want to be private evidences unlawful activity because the person does not want … Continue reading