\u201cFirst, Mr. Smith cannot establish prejudice from his attorney failing to raise the alleged violation of the knock-and-announce requirement as \u2018the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence discovered in the ensuing search.\u2019 United States v. Acosta, 502 F.3d 54, 56 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 599 (2006)). [\u00b6] Second, Mr. Smith failed to provide the Court with any evidence from which it could determine that his counsel’s decision to not file a motion to suppress was unreasonable.\u201d Smith v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108439 (D. Conn. June 19, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAfter speaking with Mr. Wood regarding the length of his trip, his plan to drive back to Dallas after driving over seven hours, only stopping to get gas and only staying at his friend’s house for thirty minutes, and his inability to provide the names of his two passengers, Sergeant Morgan acquired reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to request a canine to sniff the vehicle for contraband.\u201d State v. Diaz, 2024 La. App. LEXIS 1018 (La. App. 1 Cir. June 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Heck barred this \u00a7 1983 case: \u201cPyles’s version of the facts necessarily implies the invalidity of his conviction because he asserts that he was not guilty of the offense (and that Daily therefore lacked probable cause to arrest).\u201d Pyles v. Daily, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14924 (7th Cir. June 20, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cFirst, Mr. Smith cannot establish prejudice from his attorney failing to raise the alleged violation of the knock-and-announce requirement as \u2018the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence discovered in the ensuing search.\u2019 United States v. Acosta, 502 F.3d 54, … Continue reading