S.D.N.Y.: Home confinement for pretrial release is not a 4A seizure

“In sum, defendant is not entitled to credit against his sentence for time spent under home confinement as a condition of his bail release. Further, defendant’s time spent on home confinement did not constitute a seizure of his person under the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Severino, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1108 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2025).

CoA denied. Defendant didn’t allege enough to show an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for anything, including his Fourth Amendment claim. “The police completed three controlled purchases of narcotics from Whittingham, which enabled them to obtain a search warrant. Upon executing the search warrant, police recovered suspected heroin, firearms, ammunition, narcotics paraphernalia, and nearly $25,000 in cash. With these facts and no realistic defense, ‘a reasonable defendant would not decide to throw a hail Mary’ at trial. Id. So, reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s rejection of this ineffective-assistance claim.” Whittingham v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 66 (6th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025).*

“[W]e believe that the totality of the circumstances illustrate that officers had probable cause to believe that appellant operated the vehicle while under the influence of narcotics and, thus, had probable cause for the blood draw and to arrest appellant.” State v. Linek, 2024-Ohio-6127 (4th Dist. Dec. 20, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Ineffective assistance, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.