{"id":55075,"date":"2023-06-06T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2023-06-06T05:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55075"},"modified":"2023-06-06T07:34:29","modified_gmt":"2023-06-06T12:34:29","slug":"e-d-n-y-def-prevails-on-a-franks-challenge-on-what-he-was-carrying-into-his-house-seen-on-pole-camera","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=55075","title":{"rendered":"E.D.N.Y.: Def prevails on a Franks<\/em> challenge on what he was carrying into his house seen on pole camera"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Working from a hearing with a screen shot of a pole camera video, the court concludes that the officer stating defendant was holding a rifle was ultimately with reckless disregard of the truth. Defendant argued he was holding a bouquet of flowers; the officers weren\u2019t sure but it suggested a rifle. \u201cNonetheless, the Court cannot ignore the unusual facts in this case, to wit: Colon’s testimony acknowledging that without the pole camera video purportedly depicting Santiago smuggling a firearm into the residence, he had no basis to pursue a search warrant application. Tr. 178-79. The officer’s assessment is certainly worthy of consideration.\u201d United States v. Cerda, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96510 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stone v. \u201cPowell’s \u2018\u201copportunity for full and fair consideration\u201d means an available avenue for the prisoner to present his claim to the state courts, not an inquiry into the adequacy of the procedure actually used to resolve that particular claim.\u2019 Good v. Berghuis, 729 F.3d 636, 639 (6th Cir. 2013). Consequently, \u2018[i]n the absence of a sham proceeding, there is no need to ask whether the state court conducted an evidentiary hearing or to inquire otherwise into the rigor of the state judiciary’s procedures for resolving the claim.\u2019 Id.\u201d James v. Schroeder, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13652 (6th Cir. June 1, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Working from a hearing with a screen shot of a pole camera video, the court concludes that the officer stating defendant was holding a rifle was ultimately with reckless disregard of the truth. Defendant argued he was holding a bouquet … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,126,92],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55075","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-franks-doctrine","category-issue-preclusion","category-pole-cameras"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55075","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=55075"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55075\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55098,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55075\/revisions\/55098"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=55075"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=55075"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=55075"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}