Defendant stopped in a go-fast boat without nationality had no Fourth Amendment claim so counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress that was futile cannot be IAC. Grinard-Henry v. United States, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54898 (M.D. Fla. August 8, 2006).*<\/p>\n
The government failed in its burden of showing consent when the officers said that they wanted to look for identification papers when they were in fact looking for meth. United States v. Lopez-Lopez, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54645 (W.D. Mo. August 7, 2006). <\/p>\n
11 year old stepson could did not give implied consent to enter, even if he could. Isbell v. Hughes, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54870 (D. Ariz. August 3, 2006).<\/p>\n
California parole search was not arbitrary or capricious under Samson.<\/em> United States v. Albert, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54746 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2006).*<\/p>\n Challenge to forfeiture for lack of PC remanded because trial court found PC but did not permit claimant to contest. In re Forfeiture of 1999 Dodge Intrepid, 934 So. 2d 669 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. August 9, 2006).*<\/p>\n CI’s tip was insufficient. The fact the defendants were standing in a car wash coupled with the officer’s hunch was not enough to detain them. Beckham v. State, 934 So. 2d 681 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. August 9, 2006).*<\/p>\n In Texas, defendant could not be convicted of escaping from an arrest where the officer never actually had his hands on him. “Thus, under the court of criminal appeals’ construction of the statute, no person may be prosecuted for escape where he succeeds in prying himself loose from the officer’s grasp.” A mere Fourth Amendment seizure is not enough. Warner v. State, 201 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App. \u2013 Houston (14th Dist.) August 8, 2006). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading