\u201cOfficer Campbell averred that, based on her experience and training, she knows that firearms are tangible objects of habitual retention, and once a person acquires a firearm, he or she usually keeps said weapon for a long period of time.\u201d [Certainly, the court knows this to be true.] That overcomes defendant\u2019s staleness argument. United States v. Pierson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19697 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 7, 2019).<\/p>\n
On 2254, petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim is procedurally defaulted for not having been previously raised, and it is also rejected under Stone v. Powell. Roberts v. Wasden, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19361 (D. Idaho Feb. 4, 2019).*<\/p>\n
A police officer\u2019s observation of the speed of a car can support probable cause it was speeding. State v. Gentry<\/a>, 2019 Iowa App. LEXIS 135 (Feb. 6, 2019).* <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cOfficer Campbell averred that, based on her experience and training, she knows that firearms are tangible objects of habitual retention, and once a person acquires a firearm, he or she usually keeps said weapon for a long period of time.\u201d … Continue reading