There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest for attempted sex trafficking a minor. He said during his post-arrest interview that he was confused by the internet ad that he was responding to, but that doesn\u2019t undermine probable cause. United States v. Slim, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205368 (D.S.D. July 30, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204298 (D.S.D. Nov. 25, 2019).<\/p>\n
The affidavit for the search warrant showed probable cause and nexus to the premises for narcotics and guns. Even if it was tenuous as to guns, guns follow drugs, and that would be enough. United States v. Meadows, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204292 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203062 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 22, 2019).*<\/p>\n
\u201cHere, the petitioner provided no proof to support his assertion that a motion to suppress the Dollar Store receipt would have been granted.\u201d Therefore, his ineffective assistance claim, if made, would have failed. Sexton v. State<\/a>, 2019 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 755 (Nov. 25, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There was probable cause for defendant\u2019s arrest for attempted sex trafficking a minor. He said during his post-arrest interview that he was confused by the internet ad that he was responding to, but that doesn\u2019t undermine probable cause. United States … Continue reading