Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging recording jail calls [actually stated as a 2254(d) failure]. Garcia v. Sec’y, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 314 (11th Cir. Jan. 6, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The CSLI warrant was particular and not a general warrant, and it was based on probable cause. United States v. Webb, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1009 (D. Mont. Jan. 4, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe undersigned concludes Sgt. Stricker had individualized reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying Defendant’s detention and frisk. Officers were provided with information from a reliable confidential informant that a fugitive was located in room 214 at the Rodeway Inn, that the room’s occupants were dealing drugs, that the CI saw firearms in the room, and that the CI saw a black male with a handgun with the fugitive. Det. Wiebers had utilized this CI in the past and had made drug and firearm arrests based upon information supplied by the CI. A key portion of the CI’s information was independently corroborated when Det. Wiebers observed the fugitive and her boyfriend entering the same hotel room identified by the CI.\u201d United States v. Hill, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 246217 (D. Neb. Nov. 16, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging recording jail calls [actually stated as a 2254(d) failure]. Garcia v. Sec’y, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 314 (11th Cir. Jan. 6, 2021).* The CSLI warrant was particular and not a general warrant, and … Continue reading