Defense counsel can\u2019t be ineffective for not arguing that state law was violated by the search in his federal case. Clark v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219107 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel could not be ineffective for not challenging admission of jail calls in evidence at his trial. \u201cThus, because Traylor had no expectation of privacy in his jail phone calls, the recording of those calls did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and an objection on that basis would have been futile.\u201d Traylor v. Dir., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.-Corr. Insts. Div., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219036 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2024),* adopted, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218123 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The alleged misstatement \u201c\u2018in the search warrant affidavit\u2019 is of \u2018only peripheral relevancy to the showing of probable cause, and \u2026 did not go to the integrity of the affidavit.\u2019 Franks, 438 U.S. at 163 (internal quotations omitted).\u201d United States v. Bailey, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219043 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a middle school student\u2019s use of a school computer. Hunter v. Securly, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219084 (D. Minn. Dec. 4, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defense counsel can\u2019t be ineffective for not arguing that state law was violated by the search in his federal case. Clark v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219107 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2024).* Defense counsel could not be ineffective … Continue reading