\u201cIn his third numbered objection, Lee argues that contrary to Officer Kennedy’s testimony, the RV was completely immobile at the time it was searched and that it was being used as a residence. But whether the RV was mobile or being used as a residence is irrelevant to the Report’s conclusion regarding the good-faith exception.\u201d United States v. Lee, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106131 (E.D.Tex. June 14, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c\u2018The failure to file a motion to suppress does not constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel; an appellant must make a strong showing that the evidence would have been suppressed had the motion been filed.\u2019\u201d \u201cBecause Rawls has established that the evidence would have been suppressed had a motion to suppress been filed and given that without the search no contraband would have been found for which to charge the instant crime, Rawls has established he received ineffective assistance of counsel.\u201d Williams v. State<\/a>, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 298 (June 14, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The district court didn\u2019t err in not deciding plaintiff\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim because it wasn\u2019t fairly presented. \u201c(\u2018The district court was not obligated to comb the record in order to make [the plaintiff’s] arguments for him.\u2019).\u201d Valdez v. Grisham<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16330 (10th Cir. June 14, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cIn his third numbered objection, Lee argues that contrary to Officer Kennedy’s testimony, the RV was completely immobile at the time it was searched and that it was being used as a residence. But whether the RV was mobile or … Continue reading