Police responding to a shots fired call looked through the windows of defendant\u2019s Tahoe and saw a gun magazine. Failure to mention the lack of a ShotSpotter alert wasn\u2019t material. United States v. Johnson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164666 (D. Neb. Sep. 15, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBurris next asserts that his attorney was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence seized in a search of his home conducted under a warrant. In his \u00a7 2255 motion, Burris claimed that the affidavit supporting the warrant was \u2018barebones,\u2019 but he does not explain how the affidavit was insufficient or make a substantial showing that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. \u2026 Burris also claimed that the search warrant included not his name but his codefendant’s, yet the warrant accurately described the house in which controlled drug buys had been conducted, and so counsel correctly reasoned that there was no credible probable-cause challenge to make.\u201d Burris v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 24535 (6th Cir. Sep. 14, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The officer knew of defendant\u2019s horrible driving record and unpaid fines, and that led to the reasonable conclusion he was driving without a valid license. He wasn\u2019t required to check on the computer, which would have only confirmed it. State v. Dixon, 2023 W. Va. LEXIS 331 (Sep. 15, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Police responding to a shots fired call looked through the windows of defendant\u2019s Tahoe and saw a gun magazine. Failure to mention the lack of a ShotSpotter alert wasn\u2019t material. United States v. Johnson, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164666 (D. … Continue reading