When a firearm was seen in defendant\u2019s car, the officer did not have to even consider whether he was had a concealed carry license to seize it. Ferguson v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229451 (N.D.Ohio Dec. 1, 2021); United States v. Stevenson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229536 (N.D.Ohio Nov. 30, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBased upon the foregoing, the automobile exception applies in this case and a warrant was not required for Rannigan to search the contents of the BMW. He had probable cause to believe that the BMW contained evidence of contraband or criminal activity. As such, this Court need not consider whether the search falls within any other exceptions to warrant requirements, such as a lawful search incident to arrest.\u201d United States v. Williams, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227688 (W.D.Pa. Nov. 29, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No reasonable jurist (for CoA standard) would conclude that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the execution of the search warrant. She investigated and concluded that defendant\u2019s information from a friend that the warrant was executed at 3 pm when it was issued at 6 pm was just wrong. No evidence at all supported the argument that the warrant was prematurely executed. Therefore, no ineffective assistance of counsel. Plaster v. Parish, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35222 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When a firearm was seen in defendant\u2019s car, the officer did not have to even consider whether he was had a concealed carry license to seize it. Ferguson v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229451 (N.D.Ohio Dec. 1, 2021); … Continue reading