OR: Petr’s post-conviction 4A denied for lack of specifics and context

Defendant’s post-conviction Fourth Amendment claim was properly denied for not telling the court what evidence was improperly admitted, where it appears in the record, and how it affected the outcome. Zyst v. Kelly, 338 Or App 597 (Mar. 12, 2025).

By all accounts, plaintiff was holding a gun he wouldn’t quickly put down when officers entered his hotel room on exigent circumstances, so the use of force here was reasonable. Langiano v. City of Fort Worth, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5638 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025).*

2255 petitioner couldn’t claim defense counsel didn’t communicate with him about his case, including a failure of discovery and a Fourth Amendment claim, when he refused to communicate with counsel. Brown v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44799 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2025).*

Defendant’s traffic stop was valid; thus, the plain view of his gun when he got out of the car was valid. United States v. Christmas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44433 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.