\u201cHere, Jackson appears to have denied any possessory interest in the SUV and the backpack. (Dkt. 22 \u00b6 7 (\u2018Jackson was not the registered owner of the vehicle. He further claims all of the items in the vehicle and the backpack found in front of XXXX Fremont did not belong to him.\u2019).) And as to the backpack and the evidence it contains, the Government is correct that Jackson abandoned the backpack during his flight by dropping it. (Gov’t Ex. 2 at 12:55-13:04; Gov’t Ex. 3 at 1:45-50.)\u201d United States v. Jackson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234647 (D. Minn. Nov. 15, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court of appeals affirmed the Fourth Amendment claim without giving reasons, and that binds federal habeas review. Whatever was the basis, counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective. Hamilton v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234186 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In camera review of CI information to see if the CI was acting as a governmental agent was not unlawful. State v. Grier, 2024 Minn. App. LEXIS 552 (Dec. 24, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cHere, Jackson appears to have denied any possessory interest in the SUV and the backpack. (Dkt. 22 \u00b6 7 (\u2018Jackson was not the registered owner of the vehicle. He further claims all of the items in the vehicle and the … Continue reading