HI: Failure to litigate application of Posse Commitatus Act was IAC under state law

Defense counsel was ineffective for not raising the Posse Comitatus Act where his offense was just outside the Pearl Harbor base and the military was the first to respond. Other courts disagree, but the state exclusionary rule shows that there was a reasonable chance, with a hearing, that exclusion could have occurred. State v. Yuen, 2024 Haw. LEXIS 136 (Aug. 20, 2024).

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in federal court was rejected. The state courts’ conclusion on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim was a reasonable application of the law on the merits of the search, therefore, no ineffective assistance. Williams v. Emig, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152023 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2024).*

Search of a storage unit was based on a search warrant supported by probable cause. Defense counsel’s failure to challenge the reliability of the drug dog used to corroborate it wouldn’t change the outcome. Nasir v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151492 (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Exclusionary rule, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.