CA9: No IAC for not filing a motion to suppress email attachments captured by email provider under ToS

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress because it was reasonable to conclude defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in email attachments with the email provider where the terms of service also said there was none. Vandyck v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8216 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024).

“Ruiz argues that ‘[b]ecause the residence was searched absent a search warrant and without an applicable exception to the search warrant requirement the search was unreasonable.’ ECF No. 50 at 1. The Court disagrees for three reasons. First, the officers lawfully discovered drugs in plain view during their protective sweep of the home. Second, even if the protective sweep was unlawful, Yingling and other Task Force members still had authority to search Ruiz’s home based on his parole status. Lastly, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rules applies.” United States v. Ruiz, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61831 (S.D. Iowa Apr. 1, 2024).*

Defense counsel’s failure to appeal denial of a motion to suppress isn’t ineffective assistance of counsel where it never could succeed on the merits. United States v. Carter, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61954 (E.D. Va. Apr. 3, 2024).*

This entry was posted in E-mail, Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.