Defendant\u2019s counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective: \u201cThis Court unequivocally finds that Defendant manifested a deliberate abandonment to any interest in his neighbor’s shed. Counsel was not ineffective by tactically defending the charge by highlighting the absence of positive evidence tying Defendant to the neighbor’s shed. A motion to suppress would not have changed the outcome, as it simply would not have succeeded on this record.\u201d United States v. Birrueta, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153555 (E.D.Wash. Nov. 4, 2016).*<\/p>\n
\u201cHere, at time that he pulled Lombard’s truck over, Officer Shock also had a reasonable suspicion that Lombard was involved in narcotics trafficking\u201d based on information collected before the traffic stop. United States v. Lombard, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152489 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 3, 2016).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s Franks challenge rejected: \u201cMoreover, whether Defendant possessed one firearm or multiple firearms is immaterial to the probable cause determination, because possession of a firearm by a felon is a crime.\u201d This is not a \u201csubstantial preliminary showing\u201d required by Franks. United States v. Bell, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153135 (C.D.Ill. Nov. 4, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective: \u201cThis Court unequivocally finds that Defendant manifested a deliberate abandonment to any interest in his neighbor’s shed. Counsel was not ineffective by tactically defending the charge by highlighting the absence of positive evidence tying Defendant to … Continue reading