A West Point cadet was the target of a child pornography investigation. HSI investigated it, and the Army CID didn\u2019t violate the Posse Comitatus Act in being there but not doing anything. Hester v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153312 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 9, 2019).<\/p>\n
The affidavit was not bare bones: it described a controlled buy and a CI\u2019s statement to the officer. This affidavit is substantially the same as in United States v. Jones, 817 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2016). United States v. Palacio, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153911 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 10, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Petitioner\u2019s successor 2255 raised a claim that his lawyer was ineffective for not effectively litigating his motion to suppress. That\u2019s not a ground for a successor petition. Hernandez-Sanchez v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155147 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 10, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A West Point cadet was the target of a child pornography investigation. HSI investigated it, and the Army CID didn\u2019t violate the Posse Comitatus Act in being there but not doing anything. Hester v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading