2255 petitioner\u2019s claim that defense counsel didn\u2019t raise the question of the searching deputy being later fired didn\u2019t even attempt to show how it would change the outcome, so it\u2019s denied. United States v. Elkins, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101058 (W.D. Va. July 19, 2013).*<\/p>\n
Consent was found valid. United States v. Slone, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101198 (E.D. Ky. July 19, 2013) (R&R 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102042 (E.D.Ky. June 14, 2013))*:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Just over a year ago, defendant Ted M. Slone made certain statements to three law enforcement officers, who then searched his home and seized his property. The officers recall the encounter as pleasant and Slone as congenial and helpful. They say that Slone willingly invited them into his home, volunteered useful information, and gave them free rein to search his belongings. Slone paints a darker picture; he alleges that the officers forced their way into his home, coerced him into speaking, and searched his property without his consent, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Accordingly, he has moved to suppress his statements and the seized evidence. Because the officers’ testimony, given on the record, is more credible than Slone’s unsubstantiated allegations, his motion must be denied.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading