WV: “Mobile cellular phones” particular enough

“The first warrant authorized the seizure of ‘mobile cellular phones,’ clearly imparting sufficient particularity to allow the officer to know that petitioner’s phone was to be seized. Where the warrant clearly authorized seizure of the phone, there can be no claim that Corporal Hartman misrepresented its scope.” Defendant’s statement after the search won’t be suppressed because it was otherwise consensual. Brown v. Searls, 2024 W. Va. LEXIS 3 (Jan. 25, 2024).

Failure to file motions, including a motion to suppress, isn’t ineffective assistance of counsel without showing that any of them would be granted. State v. Said, 2024-Ohio-277 (2d Dist. Jan. 26, 2024).*

2254 petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging a search fails on the merits of the search because he had no standing. Frady v. Warden , Perry Correctional Inst., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13419 (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.