The drug dog touching the vehicle door handle with its nose was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Green, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88401 (D. Kan. May 16, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 wasn\u2019t timely. \u201cEven if Williams’s motion were timely, he would not be entitled to relief. He offers two arguments why his counsel was ineffective, rendering his plea involuntary. \u2026 Both arguments fail to persuade.\u201d He loses on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claims in any event. United States v. Williams, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88357 (D. Kan. May 15, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The affidavit for search warrant in this child pornography case is clearly more than \u201cbare bones\u201d and the good faith exception applies. United States v. Perricone, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12002 (5th Cir. May 17, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The drug dog touching the vehicle door handle with its nose was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Green, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88401 (D. Kan. May 16, 2024). Defendant\u2019s 2255 wasn\u2019t timely. \u201cEven if Williams’s motion were timely, … Continue reading