Habeas: “Full and fair opportunity” under Stone v. Powell means only that petitioner had an opportunity to litigate. The fact that the federal court might disagree with the outcome is insufficient under AEPDA; the state court outcome must be unreasonable on the facts and law. Folger v. Conway, 443 F. Supp. 2d 438 (W.D. N.Y. August 17, 2006).

Motion to dismiss counts of destroying or removing property to avoid seizure under 18 U.S.C. § 2232 requires government to prove

three elements: “(1) that a person be authorized to search for or seize certain property; (2) that the accused knowingly destroys or removes or attempts to destroy or remove the property subject to the authorized search or seizure; and (3) that the destruction or removal of the property be for the purpose of preventing its seizure.”
. . .

Notwithstanding, in order for the government to avoid a judgment of acquittal the court agrees with the Sixth Circuit that the government must present sufficient evidence, inter alia, that the government had the authority to seize the property when the alleged transfer occurred.

This is a question for trial and not a motion to dismiss. United States v. Russo, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57920 (S.D. Ala. August 16, 2006).*

There is no fixed time limit where a stop on reasonable suspicion becomes unreasonable. Because one court said 75 minutes was too long under its facts is not binding on another case with different facts. Each case is determined on the totality of circumstances. United States v. Woods, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57907 (M.D. Ala. August 14, 2006):

Here, it took the entire duration of the stop for Corporal Mills to obtain the warrant-check information. Because it appears from the videotape and courtroom testimony that the duration of the stop fell well within the time-period found to be reasonable in this circuit and because, more importantly, the duration of the stop was entirely justified by “the ordinary inquiries incident to such a stop,” Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 408 (2005), the court rejects Woods’s challenge to the duration of his stop.

Nexus to defendant’s premises for issuance of a search warrant was established by observations of other officers providing information to the affiant. Informant here was also corroborated by independent police investigation. United States v. Gunter, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57960 (E.D. Tenn. August 14, 2006).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.