Defendant entered into a beneficial plea agreement and pled to a superseding information and was sentenced. Later, the passenger in his car filed a motion to suppress and prevailed. Still, this was not ineffective assistance of his counsel. \u201cAside from testimony and other information that would not come to light until after Mr. Neal pleaded guilty, the decision to forego a motion to suppress was strategic and not an unintelligent approach to a smart defense. Counsel’s affidavit affirms that he discussed at length with Mr. Neal a motion to quash arrest and motion to suppress evidence. Mr. Neal does not contest this.\u201d Neal v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147147 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s DNA was taken by limited consent, and developing a DNA profile from it would have violated the scope of consent. \u201cStill, the superior court erred by suppressing Mitcham’s DNA profile because (1) probable cause supported his arrest even without the impermissible DNA match that allowed the State to obtain a buccal swab and develop a DNA profile; and (2) once Mitcham pled guilty to other felony charges, the profile was properly in the State’s possession. Thus, we reverse the suppression order and remand for further proceedings.\u201d State v. Mitcham, 2023 Ariz. App. LEXIS 360 (Aug. 22, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was independent probable cause under the automobile exception to search defendant\u2019s vehicle on the premises where a warrant was being executed. United States v. Joins, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 22074 (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant entered into a beneficial plea agreement and pled to a superseding information and was sentenced. Later, the passenger in his car filed a motion to suppress and prevailed. Still, this was not ineffective assistance of his counsel. \u201cAside from … Continue reading