W.D.Mich.: State law violation in search irrelevant in federal prosecution

Defense counsel can’t be ineffective for not arguing that state law was violated by the search in his federal case. Clark v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219107 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024).*

Defense counsel could not be ineffective for not challenging admission of jail calls in evidence at his trial. “Thus, because Traylor had no expectation of privacy in his jail phone calls, the recording of those calls did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and an objection on that basis would have been futile.” Traylor v. Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.-Corr. Insts. Div., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219036 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218123 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2024).*

The alleged misstatement “‘in the search warrant affidavit’ is of ‘only peripheral relevancy to the showing of probable cause, and … did not go to the integrity of the affidavit.’ Franks, 438 U.S. at 163 (internal quotations omitted).” United States v. Bailey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219043 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2024).*

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a middle school student’s use of a school computer. Hunter v. Securly, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219084 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Conflict of laws, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonableness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.