The \u201cconsent\u201d search here was not true consent, and the finding of defendant\u2019s money for seizure was a product of that invalid consent. There were no intervening circumstances sufficient to purge the taint. \u201cThe Court also finds the constitutional violations that preceded Moser’s consent were purposeful and flagrant.\u201d United States v. $28,000.00 in United States Currency, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44113 (S.D. Cal. March 29, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Officers at the house end of the driveway were in the curtilage when they made their \u201cplain view\u201d of an HCL generator. The government\u2019s alternative argument of knock-and-talk with a PO and LEO led to a \u201cprotective sweep,\u201d but the government cannot prove that there was any articulable basis for believing there was somebody armed there. Finally, the court concludes that the PO had reasonable suspicion that defendant was involved in a methamphetamine operation, and that justified entry onto the property. United States v. Wyatt, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42725 (W.D. Ky. March 28, 2012).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s guilty plea even waived ineffective assistance claims. [That violates the Sixth Amendment; how obtuse. How can defense counsel agree to a plea agreement that waives IAC? In any rational court, counsel can\u2019t because of a conflict on the potential Sixth Amendment claim.] Wiand v. United States, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43793 (N.D. Tex. January 17, 2012).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading