TN: Def’s children were missing after he was arrested for shooting his wife, so entry into house was based on exigency

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the warrantless entry into defendant’s home. He was apprehended for shootings including shooting his wife, and their children were unaccounted for. The entry was valid based on exigency. Therefore, no IAC. Jordan v. State, 2016 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 772 (Oct. 14, 2016).

The affidavit for the search warrant in this case showed probable cause to believe evidence of trying to enlist a minor in prostitution would be found on defendant’s phone and in his email account. That which was omitted from the affidavit was not material under Franks. United States v. Charles, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141602 (D.Minn. Aug. 11, 2016),* adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141484 (D.Minn. Oct. 12, 2016).*

Plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact in his false arrest claim, and summary judgment was properly entered against him. Houston v. City of Philadelphia, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18442 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2016).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, E-mail, Emergency / exigency, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.