The police here presented incomplete probable cause here that a phone call could have corrected. Since the officer knew it (and that probable cause might be lacking) and said he was charging defendant anyway, the motion to suppress the automobile search is granted. United States v. Pew, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98319 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not arguing invalidity of a search waiver where a later case in another court held a similar search was invalid. (United States v. Williams, 409 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1347-48 (M.D. Ga. 2019)). \u201cRegardless of the persuasiveness of the district court’s opinion in Williams, that opinion cannot establish that Mr. King’s counsel performed deficiently. First, this court had already denied Mr. King’s suppression motion by the time the Williams court issued its decision. (See doc. 28) (issued on January 8, 2019); Williams, 409 F. Supp. 3d at 1340 (issued on August 19, 2019). Second, the question Mr. King asserts counsel should have raised is unsettled.\u201d King v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98704 (N.D. Ala. May 23, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plaintiff\u2019s first complaint against his search was dismissed as Heck barred. He refiled it as a due process claim, and it was properly labeled as a malicious filing under \u00a7 1915. Hall v. Nisbet, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12578 (3d Cir. May 23, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The police here presented incomplete probable cause here that a phone call could have corrected. Since the officer knew it (and that probable cause might be lacking) and said he was charging defendant anyway, the motion to suppress the automobile … Continue reading