Defendant\u2019s warrantless arrest in his doorway violated the Fourth Amendment. After objecting, defendant acceded to their demands when they pulled a Taser on him. The remedy of what to do with his statement will be addressed later. United States v. Colfax, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153865 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 27, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner claimed defense counsel was ineffective for not using the product of the warrant to impeach a witness more than he did. There was effective cross-examination. \u201cThis is precisely the kind of strategic choice that Strickland instructs the courts not to second-guess, and this court will refrain from doing so. Movant has failed to overcome this presumption and these claims should be denied as Movant has failed to show ineffective assistance or prejudice.\u201d Provines v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153732 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152574 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No other case says that psychological injury is a part of an excessive force claim, so defendant gets qualified immunity on that. Terrell v. Allgrunn, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21728 (5th Cir. Aug. 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s warrantless arrest in his doorway violated the Fourth Amendment. After objecting, defendant acceded to their demands when they pulled a Taser on him. The remedy of what to do with his statement will be addressed later. United States v. … Continue reading