Some of the items seized under the warrant were named or were covered by plain view when the police got inside. Some are excludable, but they aren\u2019t returned because the government intends to forfeit. United States v. Abdul-Latif, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214141 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 7, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213234 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 30, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant failed to meet his burden of pleading and proof on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim that counsel failed to move to suppress the search of a bar surveillance recording device. The police had it voluntarily from the bar owner along with the password to get into it. A search warrant was obtained for it that wasn\u2019t promptly executed. There\u2019s no requirement under state law that the state\u2019s failure to search it promptly leads to suppression. [Standing to challenge the search isn\u2019t even mentioned.] Mohr v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 553 (Dec. 1, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Without a transcript of the suppression hearing for appeal, there\u2019s nothing to rule on. Denial of motion to suppress affirmed. State v. Crain, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 4167 (5th Dist. Nov. 30, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Some of the items seized under the warrant were named or were covered by plain view when the police got inside. Some are excludable, but they aren\u2019t returned because the government intends to forfeit. United States v. Abdul-Latif, 2023 U.S. … Continue reading