NYPD used a tracking order based on exigency followed by a written order to locate him. This was not shown to be an unconscionable breakdown in the process for Stone purposes. Also, his phone calls from Rikers were validly recorded. Lamb v. Capra, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165441 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 13, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner sought to get around Stone v. Powell by claiming an \u201cunconscionable breakdown\u201d in the state process, but it wasn\u2019t. \u201cMoreover, petitioner’s claim that the state court should have reopened the suppression hearing is non-cognizable on federal habeas review.\u201d Shepard v. Rich, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164255 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 12, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 claim that counsel was ineffective for not challenging the informant\u2019s tale as just another drug dealer\u2019s story fails. It was more than that and would have lost anyway. Maddox v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163762 (N.D. W.Va. Aug. 13, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162904 (N.D. W. Va. Sep. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 relief denied for two reasons: you can\u2019t challenge a search in 2254 if you had a chance to litigate it and didn\u2019t and then his guilty plea waived it. Kliewer v. Bennett, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163946 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162809 (W.D. Wash. Sep. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner\u2019s claim Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance claim was defaulted at the state level, and it can\u2019t be pursued on the merits. Cutlip v. Warden, Corr. Reception Ctr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164412 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 12, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
NYPD used a tracking order based on exigency followed by a written order to locate him. This was not shown to be an unconscionable breakdown in the process for Stone purposes. Also, his phone calls from Rikers were validly recorded. … Continue reading