MD: Not IAC for defense counsel to confirm witness testimony before filing motion to suppress; which here didn’t matter

Defendant contended the search of his place was before the warrant issued at 12:01 am March 1st. It was not ineffective assistance for counsel to attempt to talk to witnesses before filing a motion to suppress. Even if the police entered early: “According to the prosecutor, the entry was not an illegal search but a valid procedure to prevent the destruction of evidence while the search warrant was being obtained, and police evidence logs established that nothing was collected prior to issuance of the warrant. The prosecutor’s representations were not disputed in the circuit court, nor are they challenged on appeal. On these facts, we cannot conclude that defense counsel’s decision to defer filing a supplementary pretrial motion until he confirmed that there were legitimate grounds for the suppression of evidence amounted to a meritorious reason to discharge counsel.” Dorsey v. State, 2021 Md. App. LEXIS 345 (Apr. 23, 2021) (unpublished).*

While defendant almost certainly didn’t have guest standing in the hotel room, the entry and cursory search was valid as a protective sweep. United States v. Whitehead, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 12249 (8th Cir. Apr. 26, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.