In a 2254, defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel be defense counsel not challenging DNA taken from him by warrant in Florida in yet another sex offense, where the results were uploaded to CODIS and resulted in a hit in New York. Petitioner was never prosecuted in the Florida case, and statute said it shouldn\u2019t have been uploaded. But that\u2019s not a constitutional claim, nor is it an unreasonable application of federal law under Strickland. Brown v. Wolcott, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 250240 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court recognizes that the search warrant could have described in greater detail the AR-15 observed by Holland. The Court finds that failure to do so did not render the search warrant unconstitutionally overbroad considering the wider scope of the danger presented and larger firearms threat. The specificity requirement for the things to be seized must depend on the nature and \u2018the circumstances of the case and the type of items involved.\u2019 \u2026 The circumstances present here and the reasonable specificity in the description indicate that the search warrant proved sufficiently particular.\u201d United States v. Stordahl, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249569 (D. Mont. Oct. 30, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Staying stopped at a green light was a traffic offense, and that justified this stop. Wright v. State, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 1255 (Oct. 30, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a 2254, defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel be defense counsel not challenging DNA taken from him by warrant in Florida in yet another sex offense, where the results were uploaded to CODIS and resulted in a … Continue reading