Tennessee follows Kimmelman: “Upon our review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that to establish prejudice with this type of claim, the petitioner must prove that ‘his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence.’ Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375, 106 S. Ct. 2574, 91 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986). In applying this standard to the case before us, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals properly affirmed the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.” Phillips v. State, 2022 Tenn. LEXIS 206 (June 10, 2022). [No surprise here.]
Police detained defendant as a peeping Tom and obtained a search warrant for his cell phone. That search produced evidence of another crime, and it was not suppressed. State v. McGovern, 311 Neb. 705 (June 10, 2022).*
“Smith’s attorneys’ choosing to focus on certain Fourth Amendment arguments over others was merely a strategic decision ‘about which competent lawyers might disagree.’” Smith v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104074 (N.D.Ala. June 10, 2022).