Defendant had standing to challenge the search of a grow operation where he had a key and stayed there in a sleeping bag a few nights a week. Just because it was also a commercial enterprise doesn\u2019t mean he can\u2019t have standing. He was not, however, the subscriber for the utilities, so he had no standing to challenge that. United States v. Calzada, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36590 (W.D. Tex. March 18, 2013).<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not making an esoteric challenge to whether the PV warrant was lawfully issued that resulted in finding drugs in plain view. Defense counsel is not required to file every conceivable motion. This would be a \u201cdifficult facial challenge\u201d to the state statute that likely would have failed, so no IAC. Scott v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36982 (D. Mass. March 18, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Border Patrol received an anonymous tip about a vehicle \u201cfull of aliens\u201d in a Chevy Lumina near Nogales. Officers had a hard time finding a matching vehicle. They stopped a similarly colored Dodge Neon that was riding low. Nothing in the tip was specific or predictive and there was no reasonable suspicion as to this vehicle. Also, the road has both legitimate and illegitimate travelers. There was no reasonable suspicion here. United States v. Maldonado, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37048 (D. Ariz. March 18, 2013),* R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37082 (D. Ariz. January 30, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading