The search of defendant\u2019s purse was by consent. She was stopped at the Albuquerque Greyhound station by the DEA and asked twice for consent to search her purse, and he asked why. Finally, the DEA agent asked if she could just open it so he could look inside, and defendant agreed and she moved it around, and the officer didn\u2019t reach inside. Considering the totality, the court finds it was by consent. United States v. Ramos-Burciaga, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159685 (D. N.M. Sep. 19, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defendant in his 2255 raised an illegal search ineffective assistance claim. He makes a prima facie showing of standing in his girlfriend\u2019s apartment because he spent a lot of time there and had a key. On the merits of the search, there was exigency for the entry, and there was no ineffective assistance of counsel because a motion to suppress would have failed. Bloch v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159544 (N.D. Ind. Sep. 19, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search of defendant\u2019s purse was by consent. She was stopped at the Albuquerque Greyhound station by the DEA and asked twice for consent to search her purse, and he asked why. Finally, the DEA agent asked if she could … Continue reading