There was a six day delay between seizure of six cell phones and issuance of a search warrant for them. This was reasonable under CA11 precedent. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Norwood, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16851 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 28, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cUnder the circumstances of this case, Officer Biesemann’s request that the driver and passengers exit the vehicle and stand at its rear, following a valid traffic stop with probable cause of a lane violation, does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendant’s objection is overruled.\u201d United States v. Young, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16789 (E.D.Mo. Jan. 31, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 habeas petitioner cannot show he would prevail on this Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Looking at the merits, no motion to suppress would have prevailed, so defense counsel couldn\u2019t be ineffective for not trying. \u201c Through the lens of double deference, Flowers did not act unreasonably in not pursuing this argument and there was also not a reasonable probability that this argument would have been successful. The state court’s resolution of those issues was certainly not an unreasonable application of Strickland.\u201d Gayot v. New York, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17009 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
There was a six day delay between seizure of six cell phones and issuance of a search warrant for them. This was reasonable under CA11 precedent. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Norwood, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading