GA: Not objecting to mention of “probation” search at trial was not IAC

Not objecting to defendant’s probation status where it came up as a probation search was not unreasonable. Plus, it would have otherwise come in. “Hutcheson’s probation status was thus necessary to complete the State’s story of the crime. Trial counsel’s failure to make a meritless objection to the admission of the brief references to Hutcheson’s probation status and the Fourth Amendment waiver was thus not deficient performance.” Hutcheson v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 219 (May 25, 2023).

One spouse has no constitutional right to be present during the arrest of the other. Nothing supports such an argument. Grega v. Vroman, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91369 n.11 (W.D. Pa. May 22, 2023)* (here it was framed in as the husband has a right to be present when his wife is arrested).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not moving to suppress the 2010 search of his cell phone based on the law then. Alvarez v. Williams, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91629 (D. Nev. May 25, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Good faith exception, Probation / Parole search, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.