Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not raising a Franks challenge mid-trial when a participant in the search warrant process had a memory failure on the stand as to something. Offutt v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231418 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a window area of a hallway outside the apartment searched that was just as readily accessible to two other apartments. And, defendant didn\u2019t live in any apartment. United States v. Guerrero, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231956 (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court doesn\u2019t have to decide standing or scope of consent. Inevitable discovery applies. The officers plainly had enough information for probable cause and would have otherwise sought a warrant. \u201cThe First Circuit has repeatedly found the inevitable discovery doctrine applicable under similar circumstances.\u201d United States v. Sanchez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231005 (D. Mass. Oct. 8, 2026).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not raising a Franks challenge mid-trial when a participant in the search warrant process had a memory failure on the stand as to something. Offutt v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231418 (S.D. Ill. … Continue reading