A[n apparent] family lawyer was ordered to appear at a federal court suppression hearing, and his state law objections as to privilege to his testifying were overruled. United States v. Jeremias, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63989 (W.D. N.C. June 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Based on all the evidence, the stop of defendant, a black male running down the street, was justified because there was substantial evidence to believe he was involved in a robbery that police quickly converged on. United States v. Harris, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64171 (D. Minn. April 8, 2011).*<\/p>\n
A search warrant issued after a flyover of a marijuana grow that did not specify open fields on the property was not invalid. And, if it was in open fields on the property, it could be searched anyway. United States v. Burge, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63802 (C.D. Ill. June 16, 2011).*<\/p>\n
\u201cAny challenge to this court\u2019s denial of the suppression motion would have proved futile; the failure to further pursue the argument did not prejudice Petitioner. Counsel\u2019s decision not to raise a meritless claim does not constitute ineffective assistance.\u201d Angulo-Hernandez v. United States, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64133 (D. P.R. June 16, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading