Defendant was the apparent subject of a 911 caller about an indecent exposure complaint of a man in dreadlocks with a white shirt at a particular place. Defendant matched the description, and his encounter with the police, including his patdown was purely by consent. When defendant was arrested, the bag with him was properly inventoried. United States v. White, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113991 (D. S.C. October 26, 2010).*<\/p>\n
2255 petitioner\u2019s Gant<\/a> claim was unreviewable in post-conviction under Stone v. Powell<\/a>. [He did not allege an IAC claim. Note to readers: I almost never include cases citing Stone<\/a>. If criminal defense lawyers don\u2019t know that by now, they are beyond my help here. You have to tie the Fourth Amendment claim to an IAC claim via Kimmelman<\/a>. But, I know that nonlawyers read this, too, and pro se 2255’s and state post-convictions make this mistake everyday, and Stone is 34 years old.] Smith v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114199 (N.D. Ohio October 27, 2010).*<\/p>\n The CI here was clearly reliable because the police listened in to telephone calls between him and the defendant for their probable cause. United States v. Constantine, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113969 (D. Minn. October 26, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading