\u201cWhile Vasquez was indeed acting strangely, for the stop to be valid, his conduct must be indicative of criminal behavior. The Court here simply cannot bridge the connection between the conduct here that is suspicious or odd in the lay sense to conduct that is suspicious such that it indicates particular criminal behavior. A burglar or thief would not walk down the street in a strange and noticeable costume nor draw attention to himself by doing lunges down the main sidewalk.\u201d United States v. Vasquez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75774 (D.Mont. Apr. 26, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s guilty plea waived his search claim. Bevalaque v. State<\/a>, 2022 Miss. App. LEXIS 126 (Apr. 26, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that would fail where the challenged part went to drug quantity. Galvan v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75500 (N.D.Tex. Mar. 31, 2022),* adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75436 (N.D.Tex. Apr. 26, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Defense counsel had a valid strategic reason to not pursue a motion to suppress, particularly where it likely would fail, because the plea offer would be off the table. Coonradt v. State<\/a>, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 360 (Apr. 27, 2022).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cWhile Vasquez was indeed acting strangely, for the stop to be valid, his conduct must be indicative of criminal behavior. The Court here simply cannot bridge the connection between the conduct here that is suspicious or odd in the lay … Continue reading