Category Archives: Unreasonable application / § 2254(d)

D.Or.: Ptf stated 1A retaliation claim that SW for his property was because of his speech

Plaintiff stated a claim that execution of a search warrant for his property and writings was retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights. “Here, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable juror could … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.Or.: Ptf stated 1A retaliation claim that SW for his property was because of his speech

D.Minn.: No 4A claim for seizure of legal papers in prison

There is no Fourth Amendment claim for seizure of legal papers when an inmate was moving within a prison. Smith v. Starr, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139361 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2022). “Following the arrest, however, the agents lawfully knew … Continue reading

Posted in Independent source, Prison and jail searches, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.Minn.: No 4A claim for seizure of legal papers in prison

CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed

“Where ‘a plaintiff claims that excessive force was used multiple times, “the court must segment the incident into its constituent parts and consider the officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity at each step along the way.”’ Wright, 962 F.3d at 865 … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed

DE: Def counsel not ineffective for not forecasting Jones GPS case

“Because the Court will not find trial counsel ineffective for failing to ‘effectively’ raise an issue of first impression [on GPS placement], and because the Court believes that even if he had done so effectively, the issue would not have … Continue reading

Posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on DE: Def counsel not ineffective for not forecasting Jones GPS case

N.D.Ind.: 2254(d) “unreasonable application” review considered whether correct case law applied

In this 2254, the argument was that the state court’s application of law violated 2254’s “unreasonable” application standard, but it didn’t. The question was whether Michigan v. Long or Arizona v. Gant applies. “In sum, the State courts’ reliance on … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity, Seizure, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: 2254(d) “unreasonable application” review considered whether correct case law applied

NY4: Minor typos in SW application don’t void the warrant

“We reject defendant’s contention that the search warrant for his cell phones was issued without probable cause. According ‘great deference to the issuing [Justice]’ …, we conclude that Supreme Court properly determined that there was sufficient information in the warrant … Continue reading

Posted in Prison and jail searches, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Warrant papers, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on NY4: Minor typos in SW application don’t void the warrant

WA: HIPAA violation in seizing medical records by SW required their return

The trial court’s order denying return of patient records taken by search warrant from the petitioner youth services provider failed to comply with HIPAA requirements should have been granted. While the records have been returned and the case is otherwise … Continue reading

Posted in Privileges, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on WA: HIPAA violation in seizing medical records by SW required their return

CA9: Use of def’s suppression hearing testimony in penalty phase not unreasonable application of Simmons

The California Supreme Court’s holding that Simmons did not bar using defendant’s suppression hearing testimony in the death penalty phase of his criminal trial (People v. Ochoa, 19 Cal. 4th 353, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 408, 966 P.2d 442, 464, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Privileges, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA9: Use of def’s suppression hearing testimony in penalty phase not unreasonable application of Simmons

CA10: Nexus for CP can logically move when def does

Police had probable cause defendant uploaded child pornography from home. Then he moved. It was reasonable to assume his computers went with him to the new address, so nexus was sufficiently shown for probable cause there. United States v. Kilgore, … Continue reading

Posted in Nexus, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA10: Nexus for CP can logically move when def does

S.D.W.Va.: A tiny scrap of mj in a trash pull doesn’t support an inference of drug dealing from the house

“Detective Aldridge could not reasonably have believed that the three tiny scraps of marijuana in the trash—unable to cover even a corner of a Post-it note [actually a stem; photo included]—could support the idea of ongoing or recurrent activity in … Continue reading

Posted in Private search, Probable cause, Standards of review, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: A tiny scrap of mj in a trash pull doesn’t support an inference of drug dealing from the house

DE: Def had no standing to complain where govt actor entered neighbor’s property to look at his

Plaintiff had no standing to challenge a government actor’s entry into his neighbor’s property to look at his. McCafferty v. New Castle County Bd. of License, 2021 Del. Super. LEXIS 343 (Apr. 26, 2021). No matter how the court views … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Reasonable suspicion, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on DE: Def had no standing to complain where govt actor entered neighbor’s property to look at his

D.Minn.: Because tracking order affiant was fired for falsifying other tracking requests doesn’t mean this one was false when def can’t show anything

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the tracking warrant in defendant’s case based on the fact the officer who got it was fired for falsifying other tracking orders. “Bettis alleges that his counsel was ineffective by failing to challenge … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Because tracking order affiant was fired for falsifying other tracking requests doesn’t mean this one was false when def can’t show anything

MI: Inventory policy doesn’t have to be written if it’s standardized

A written search inventory policy isn’t constitutionally required. “We hold that, in order to establish that an inventory search is reasonable, the prosecution must establish that an inventory-search policy existed, all police officers were required to follow the policy, the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Inventory, Issue preclusion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Waiver | Comments Off on MI: Inventory policy doesn’t have to be written if it’s standardized

D.Idaho: Traffic stop was admitted pretextual but it was based on RS of a drug offense and otherwise objectively reasonable

Defendant’s traffic stop was admittedly pretextual to investigate a drug offense, and the officers had reasonable suspicion on collective knowledge to justify the stop. United States v. Tuschoff, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47130 (D. Idaho Mar. 10, 2021). The CI … Continue reading

Posted in Informant hearsay, Pretext, Reasonable suspicion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Traffic stop was admitted pretextual but it was based on RS of a drug offense and otherwise objectively reasonable

CA11: Def doesn’t show searching officer’s arrest two years after his trial would have changed outcome for successor habeas

Defendant’s searching officer’s arrest two years after defendant’s conviction didn’t qualify for a successor habeas because he couldn’t show that the new information would have affected the officer’s credibility at a suppression hearing or trial, nor does he allege prejudice. … Continue reading

Posted in Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA11: Def doesn’t show searching officer’s arrest two years after his trial would have changed outcome for successor habeas

IA: Oral permission to amend SW to correct address of place to be searched made SW particular

When the executing officers arrived at the place of search, they realized that the particular description of the place to be searched was wrong. The affiant (apparently) called the issuing judge and got permission to amend the warrant’s place to … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on IA: Oral permission to amend SW to correct address of place to be searched made SW particular

N.D.Ohio: Reasonableness of a parole search can include considering def’s criminal record

Knights on parole and probation searches is a reasonableness on the totality test, and this measures up. Defendant’s criminal record is a relevant factor for the officers to consider. United States v. Sharp, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18768 (N.D. Ohio … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Reasonableness, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Reasonableness of a parole search can include considering def’s criminal record

CA6: Judge issuing SW isn’t barred from conducting trial

The Michigan state courts’ conclusion that the judge who issued a search warrant was not barred from hearing the trial was based on precedent, the judge didn’t remember the search warrant, and it is not an unreasonable application of existing … Continue reading

Posted in Neutral and detached magistrate, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA6: Judge issuing SW isn’t barred from conducting trial

CA11: Successor habeas over detention that led to confession not based on newly discovered evidence

Petitioner’s 2254 successor petition is denied on his claim that his detention was unreasonable that led to his confession. “Nero’s claims do not meet the statutory criteria. He indicates that his claims do not rely on a new rule of … Continue reading

Posted in Issue preclusion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA11: Successor habeas over detention that led to confession not based on newly discovered evidence

CA6: CoA denied for federal defense counsel not pursuing claim SW violated state law

CoA denied for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel didn’t investigate the claim that the state court search warrant hadn’t been properly issued and then filed and was thus invalid. It wouldn’t be because there was essentially … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Reasonableness, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA6: CoA denied for federal defense counsel not pursuing claim SW violated state law