This is petitioner\u2019s third successor habeas attempt. This one claims new information might make a Franks violation. Except that it doesn\u2019t qualify for permission to proceed as a successor. In re Obeginski, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806 (11th Cir. Feb. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The search here was valid both because defendant was a probation absconder and probable cause. United States v. Balles, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20780 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cPolice had ample probable cause to arrest Defendant for falsely identifying himself to police and for unlawful possession of a firearm, in addition to the DOC warrant, by the time the truck was searched. As with the automobile exception, Sgt. Panattoni had a belief that there might be other firearms or ammunition in the truck, but the United States did not ask him to explain the reasons for this belief. Given the United States failed to elicit and establish the basis for the belief, the United States also failed to meet its burden in establishing that the search of the truck was a valid search incident to arrest. [\u00b6] Without an adequate showing that a warrant exception applies, the Court cannot conclude that the warrantless vehicle search was lawful.\u201d United States v. Balles, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20780 (E.D. Wash. Feb. 5, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This is petitioner\u2019s third successor habeas attempt. This one claims new information might make a Franks violation. Except that it doesn\u2019t qualify for permission to proceed as a successor. In re Obeginski, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806 (11th Cir. Feb. … Continue reading