Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging the tracking warrant in defendant\u2019s case based on the fact the officer who got it was fired for falsifying other tracking orders. \u201cBettis alleges that his counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge the tracking warrant. But the tracking warrant and the underlying affidavit are not facially defective, nor does Bettis credibly identify a specific defect in the tracking warrant or the underlying affidavit that his counsel failed to challenge.\u201d A second search issue was defense counsel\u2019s failure to challenge the probable cause for search of his rental vehicle. The dispute in the facts was thoroughly explored in the suppression hearing and it doesn\u2019t undermine materiality of the facts in the affidavit. United States v. Bettis, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63986 (D. Minn. Apr. 1, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner convicted of murder claimed defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the probable cause for the search warrant for the gun he buried on his property on the ground it should have been argued he wasn\u2019t the aggressor. Defense counsel\u2019s decision not to was strategic, and the state court\u2019s finding on that wasn\u2019t an unreasonable application of constitutional law. White v. Ames, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63796 (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 9, 2021).* [Whether he was the aggressor or not, that wouldn\u2019t be a defense to issuance of a search warrant.]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging the tracking warrant in defendant\u2019s case based on the fact the officer who got it was fired for falsifying other tracking orders. \u201cBettis alleges that his counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge … Continue reading