\u201cAlthough the marijuana in Codrington’s car was discovered through an unreasonable search, that is immaterial to the Court’s analysis because the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply to \u00a7 1983 proceedings. As long as the marijuana found in Codrington’s car was not fabricated by the officers, they would have had \u2018probable cause for his arrest, notwithstanding the previous unlawful stop \u2026 [and] the existence of probable cause for the arrest would also bar recovery on a theory of malicious prosecution.\u2019 Martin v. Marinez, 934 F.3d 594, 598-99 (7th Cir. 2019).\u201d Codrington v. Dolak, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76433 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was at least some indicia of probable cause in the affidavit for search warrant, so the warrant was executed in good faith. United States v. Vo Tran, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10068 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel claim for defense counsel\u2019s not raising a challenge to his consent was rejected on the merits. It\u2019s not an unreasonable application of SCOTUS precedent. Harvey v. King, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10179 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAlthough the marijuana in Codrington’s car was discovered through an unreasonable search, that is immaterial to the Court’s analysis because the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule does not apply to \u00a7 1983 proceedings. As long as the marijuana found in Codrington’s … Continue reading