The court does not credit the officer\u2019s claim that defendant was excessively nervous to the point of stuttering during the stop in the officer’s effort to show reasonable suspicion. It appears to the court from the video to be no more than anyone confronted by the police. In addition, defendant did not impliedly consent to the search. United States v. Raniewicz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168994 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 22, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner tried to finesse around a Stone bar, by arguing it as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel argued the theory wrong. \u201cPetitioner himself has not, until now, advanced this theory of how his Franks request was made but not honored [in the state court]. Even accepting Petitioner’s version of the facts as true, the Court again cannot conclude that he was denied a full and fair hearing on his Fourth Amendment claim.\u201d Stallings v. Cromwell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168077 (E.D. Wis. Sep. 21, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDefendant gave consent in a public parking lot. \u2026 He never objected to the search and, in fact, asked officers to retrieve his wallet from inside the vehicle. \u2026 The Court thus finds that the preponderance of evidence shows Defendant’s consent was voluntary and recommends denial of his motion to suppress.\u201d United States v. Stewart, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168476 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 29, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The court does not credit the officer\u2019s claim that defendant was excessively nervous to the point of stuttering during the stop in the officer’s effort to show reasonable suspicion. It appears to the court from the video to be no … Continue reading