W.D.La.: Def counsel’s failure to object to GFE in R&R not IAC where it couldn’t win anyway

The R&R also decided the good faith exception applied to this search, but defense counsel didn’t object. It’s a meritless issue, so defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not objecting. United States v. Harp, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194730 (W.D. La. Oct. 24, 2024).*

2255 petitioner brought an interrogation claim, and he later added a Fourth Amendment claim, but it was outside the statute of limitations and is barred. It doesn’t satisfy the relation back doctrine. United States v. Jones, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194581 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 25, 2024).*

Pole camera surveillance showed defendant pointing a gun at a man, and that supported his sentencing enhancement. United States v. Dennis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27147 (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2024).*

The presence of a drug dog during the traffic stop wasn’t argued by the defense, but the court goes ahead and says it was legal because the officer was diligently filling out the paperwork for the stop. Adams v. Commonwealth, 2024 Ky. App. LEXIS 95 (Oct. 25, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Pole cameras. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.