Defendant contended that the officer executing an invalid state arrest warrant had a duty to verify the validity of the warrant before executing it. He didn\u2019t, and the officer acted in otherwise good faith. Therefore, the exclusionary rule would not be applied. United States v. Martin, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29880 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The IAC allegation defense counsel failed to argue particularity of the search warrant was resolved in the state courts and it wasn\u2019t an unreasonable determination of precedent. \u201cReasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s conclusion that the state appellate court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The record supports the state appellate court’s determination that the search warrant, which expressly incorporated documents particularly describing Rogers’s property, was not ambiguous regarding the location to search. In fact, the exhibit to the affidavit provided detailed directions to Rogers’s residence and a detailed description of his residence. Thus, counsel had no reason to challenge the search warrant on the ground that it did not particularly describe the location subject to search.\u201d Rogers v. Hutchinson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29866 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant contended that the officer executing an invalid state arrest warrant had a duty to verify the validity of the warrant before executing it. He didn\u2019t, and the officer acted in otherwise good faith. Therefore, the exclusionary rule would not … Continue reading