2255 petitioner doesn\u2019t show ineffective assistance of counsel on counsel\u2019s not pursuing a Fourth Amendment claim on an unsettled question of law. That\u2019s professional judgment. He has to show that the issue was clearly meritorious. Brito-Arroyo v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205498 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 29, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s erratic driving supported his stop, despite the fact the officer also suspected that the vehicle might be stolen. The fact it wasn\u2019t stolen doesn\u2019t nullify the basis for the stop. United States v. Young, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205500 (D. Minn. Sep. 12, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The state court erroneously denying a motion to suppress is not a 2254 issue because it\u2019s barred by Stone. No COA. Decarlo v. Stephenson, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31332 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A female prison guard\u2019s chance seeing plaintiff urinating in his cell is not a Fourth Amendment violation. This court has already held that a male guard\u2019s chance seeing a female inmates’ breasts wasn\u2019t a Fourth Amendment either. Sublett v. Hall, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31331 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
2255 petitioner doesn\u2019t show ineffective assistance of counsel on counsel\u2019s not pursuing a Fourth Amendment claim on an unsettled question of law. That\u2019s professional judgment. He has to show that the issue was clearly meritorious. Brito-Arroyo v. United States, 2022 … Continue reading