Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not moving to suppress his frisk incident to arrest that produced a key fob in 2017. The law changed a little five years after the search occurred, but it still would have failed at the time. The 2022 case he relies on was sufficiently distinguishable that it wouldn\u2019t have bound the trial court here. Sanders v. United States, 2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 18 (Feb. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial court at the suppression hearing gave the state the opportunity to make an attenuation argument, too, but it passed relying on case law that it didn\u2019t have to. Then the state supreme court overruled that case law. Remanded to give the state the chance again. State v. Lea, 337 Or. App. 652 (Feb. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In \u00a7 1983 cases, the Eighth Circuit \u201csitting en banc, discard[s] our clear statement rule and adopt the \u2018course of proceedings test\u2019 for determining whether a \u00a7 1983 defendant is sued in her individual or official capacity. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.\u201d This was an excessive force case. S.A.A. v. Geisler, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2789 (8th Cir. Feb. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not moving to suppress his frisk incident to arrest that produced a key fob in 2017. The law changed a little five years after the search occurred, but it still would have failed at the … Continue reading