Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence and statements is deficient in what it alleges, so the court goes with the government\u2019s version and denies the motion. United States v. Aleem, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182475 (N.D.N.Y. April 30, 2014).<\/p>\n
Officers had more than a mere hunch that defendant, believed to have crossed the border illegally after a 2004 deportation and a 2009 Iowa conviction for domestic battery, was driving this car when it was stopped. ICE had been looking for him, staked out where he lived, and reasonably believed he was in the car, although \u201cnot 100% sure.\u201d United States v. Baez, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24685 (N.D. Iowa March 2, 2015).*<\/p>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the search because the defendant cooperated and was debriefed before that. That was strategic and made sense. The federal firearms charge with a mandatory minimum wasn\u2019t filed because of a state motion to suppress. Besides, it was essentially frivolous. Tran v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24691 (N.D. Iowa March 2, 2015).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress evidence and statements is deficient in what it alleges, so the court goes with the government\u2019s version and denies the motion. United States v. Aleem, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182475 (N.D.N.Y. April 30, 2014). Officers had … Continue reading