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 the home. None of the additional facts known to Detective Aldridge are sufficient to make his reliance on the warrant reasonable. [¶] Also, like in Lyles, this warrant was unreasonably broad, bordering on a general warrant, to investigate possession of marijuana. It authorized the search of electronic devices and financial records that have no connection to the offense of marijuana possession.” United States v. Coleman, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81429 (S.D. W.Va. Apr. 28, 2021) (also noting Nelson from a six days ago as a pattern).

This 2254 petitioner raised cell phone information extraction as a Fourth Amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which was rejected in the state courts. It can’t be relitigated. Easterwood v. Schroeder, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 12720 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2021).*

Defendant quibbling on appeal over credibility of the officer for not remembering certain details of the traffic stop; the important facts were credited by the district court and binding on the court of appeals. United States v. Onyeri, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 12715 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2021).*

A merchant who took defendant’s credit card and DL for the police wasn’t an agent of the police. State v. Perry, 2021 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 176 (Apr. 29, 2021).

This entry was posted in Private search, Probable cause, Standards of review, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.