Defendants had no real connection to the place searched to have standing. \u201cThere was no evidence presented to support the Defendants’ allegation that they had permission from the owners (Stevens and Levings) to stay in the home as overnight guests. In fact, no evidence was presented to support the idea that the owners gave permission for the Defendants to be inside the home for any period of time. There is no evidence the Defendants had a previous relationship with Stevens or Levings. At the suppression hearing, testimony revealed that Williams and Fast did not have belongings in the house to support the contention that they were staying at the residence as overnight guests.\u201d United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40429 (D.N.D. Mar. 7, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The finding of the state court on this habeas petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim fails on both the merits and the unreasonable application provision of 2254(d). In re Kaba, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40362 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2024) (Chin, Circuit Judge on assignment).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Habeas petitioner raised his Fourth Amendment claim in state court and lost, and she can\u2019t relitigate it under Stone. Holdren v. Administrator, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40471 (D.N.J. Mar. 7, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendants had no real connection to the place searched to have standing. \u201cThere was no evidence presented to support the Defendants’ allegation that they had permission from the owners (Stevens and Levings) to stay in the home as overnight guests. … Continue reading