OH4: No standing in codef’s patdown

Defendant has no standing to challenge a codefendant’s patdown. In addition, admission of his jail calls was not a Fifth Amendment violation. (Finally, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for withdrawing a motion to suppress that was destined to fail.) State v. Smith, 2022-Ohio-371, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 319 (4th Dist. Feb. 2, 2022).

It would have been better to have included the CI’s criminal history in the affidavit for warrant, but the abundance of probable cause doesn’t show it was material. United States v. Frick, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23518 (W.D.Wash. Feb. 9, 2022).*

Defendant argues the motion to suppress was improperly denied because there’s no evidence he didn’t signal before turning from a state highway to a toll road. The dashcam shows it all. Hardy v. State, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 949 (Tex. App. – Tyler Feb. 9, 2022).* (Why is this published?)

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.