\u201cPetitioner’s Claim 9 is likewise conclusory and without merit. Petitioner claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a potential Fourth Amendment violation regarding Petitioner’s consent to search his residence and computer. However, Petitioner has not explained how such an investigation would have affected Petitioner’s decision to plead guilty, so as to demonstrate prejudice under Strickland. [\u00b6] Moreover, this claim is contradicted by Petitioner’s representations at his waiver-of-pretrial-motions and change-of plea hearings, that he understood his rights to assert such Fourth Amendment violations and that he was waiving such rights.\u201d Burch v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167751 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2019).*<\/p>\n
The court disagrees with other district courts of appeals that merely touching the center or fog line justifies a stop because it isn\u2019t reasonable suspicion. It is. State v. Turner<\/a>, 2019-Ohio-3950, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4028 (12th Dist. Sept. 30, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cPetitioner’s Claim 9 is likewise conclusory and without merit. Petitioner claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a potential Fourth Amendment violation regarding Petitioner’s consent to search his residence and computer. However, Petitioner has not explained how such … Continue reading