When arguing that the good faith exception does not apply, the \u201cwholly abandoned his judicial role\u201d exception needs an offer of proof. If, however, there is, in fact, probable cause, how do you prove that? You can’t. United States v. Thompson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40215 (D.Neb. Feb. 19, 2016)<\/p>\n
COA petitioner had a \u201cfull and fair opportunity to litigate\u201d the search in state court and lost. \u201cShe argues, instead, that the state courts could not have \u2018possibly\u2019 applied the correct legal standards because it is \u2018manifestly evident\u2019 that the October 17, 2007 warrant is overbroad on its face and, yet, the state courts reached the opposite conclusion. She further asserts the OCCA’s resolution of the claim was \u2018brief and conclusory.\u2019\u201d It was decided on the merits, and that\u2019s binding. Salado v. Aldridge<\/a>, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5892 (10th Cir. March 31, 2016).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" When arguing that the good faith exception does not apply, the \u201cwholly abandoned his judicial role\u201d exception needs an offer of proof. If, however, there is, in fact, probable cause, how do you prove that? You can’t. United States v. … Continue reading