While executing a search warrant, officers compelled defendant to provide the passcode to the safe. The court suppressed the contents of the safe because it was not a valid consent. The government doesn\u2019t get to argue inevitable discovery on a motion to reconsider. That should have been raised in its original response. United States v. Villarreal-Resendiz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226914 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant had no standing to challenge the search of his sister\u2019s apartment. He was just an occasional visitor there. State v. Jones, 2026-Ohio-3893 (2d Dist. Oct. 2, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s hand-to-hand drug transaction watched by police was probable cause for his arrest. United States v. Mayberry, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 30244 (10th Cir. Oct. 2, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In any ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner has to show that if defense counsel did what he or she should have, they would have prevailed, whether it\u2019s a motion to suppress or objection not made. Nelson v. Cain, 375 Or. 614 (Oct. 1, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
While executing a search warrant, officers compelled defendant to provide the passcode to the safe. The court suppressed the contents of the safe because it was not a valid consent. The government doesn\u2019t get to argue inevitable discovery on a … Continue reading