\u201cThe instant motion to suppress raises the question of whether Defendant Clement Franklin Fuller, III, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the enclosed porch of his leased residence. A police officer passed through the porch to knock on the primary door to the residence. While on the porch, the officer noticed evidence that led to Defendant\u2019s arrest. For the reasons that follow, Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress will be denied because the door to the primary residence was the place that the gentleman\u2019s reasonable expectation of privacy began.\u201d United States v. Fuller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115913 (E.D. Mich. October 7, 2011).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s 2255 claim that defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging his consent to search on the ground his consent form was forged was legally frivolous. Defense counsel entertained that contention and hired a handwriting expert to compare and the expert determined it was defendant\u2019s signature. United States v. Gallipeau, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116047 (D. S.C. October 5, 2011).*<\/p>\n
\u201cViewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Johnson, we cannot say that the officers\u2019 use of force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law.\u201d While the situation was tense and rapidly evolving, it did not appear that plaintiff was any real threat to the officer’s safety. Johnson v. Carroll<\/a>, 658 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading