E.D.Ark.: Inevitable discovery applies; def counsel overlooked suppression motion, but it wouldn’t have won

The state conceded that defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress satisfied the performance prong of Strickland. At issue, however, was the prejudice prong, and that failure did not amount to prejudice because the evidence would have been inevitably discovered anyway. Therefore, 2254 denied. Hogan v. Kelley, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100392 (E.D.Ark. July 31, 2015).*

The detention and search here was before Rodriguez, and the court bases the continued detention on the same analysis without relying on it. “Whether Trooper Villines had reasonable suspicion based on these factors is a close question.” The first two factors are nothing of any consequence and the third has some support in the case law, so the court finds reasonable suspicion. [Quite wrongly, I think.] United States v. Moore, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13320 (10th Cir. July 30, 2015).*

Defendant was stopped for speeding, admitted he had marijuana in the car, and that led to a drug dog and his arrest. The stop for speeding was objectively reasonable. People v. Talbert, 2015 V.I. LEXIS 87 (Super.Ct. July 22, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.