\u201cThat a motion to suppress or an objection based on trial testimony regarding the aerial surveillance video might have been reasonable falls short of establishing deficient performance by counsel. United States v. Reyes, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134866, 2012 WL 4339070, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2012) (explaining \u2018a Fourth Amendment motion to suppress in this case might seem reasonable; yet this is not the standard applied to consider an attorney’s performance\u2019). Because the Strickland test requires that both prongs of the test be met, the Court need not address the prejudice prong. See Gonzalez v. Wong, 667 F.3d 965, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (\u2018Because failure to meet either prong is fatal to [defendant’s] claim, there is no requirement that we \u201caddress both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.\u201d\u2019) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).\u201d Villarreal v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206377 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff fails to state a claim for taking DNA in a criminal case. Hawkins v. Washoe Cty., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206175 (D. Nev. Oct. 24, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Possession of marijuana is still a federal crime, so a dog alert on defendant\u2019s backpack justified its search. United States v. Higgins, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206173 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 3, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205034 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 12, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThat a motion to suppress or an objection based on trial testimony regarding the aerial surveillance video might have been reasonable falls short of establishing deficient performance by counsel. United States v. Reyes, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134866, 2012 WL … Continue reading