The search warrant was in the S.D. Tex., and the affiant found a mistake before it was finalized that he communicated to the AUSAs involved. The correction, however, wasn\u2019t made before he signed it, and he didn\u2019t notice it. When the mistake was discovered, the electronics search was paused, and they went to the issuing court which determined that nothing needed to be done. The mistake was honest, maybe mere negligence, and it didn\u2019t affect the probable cause determination. Franks motion denied. United States v. Baiyewu, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234922 (D.P.R. Dec. 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The District Court denied a suppression hearing so defendant opted for a bench trial. That put the government to its proof on some of the elements of the crime, and that supported denial of acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Cheatwood, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24 (4th Cir. Jan. 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel didn\u2019t properly challenge \u201chis March 14 arrest is frivolous, meaning counsel could not have been deficient for failing to raise the challenge.\u201d United States v. Perez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106 (D. Minn. Jan. 2, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The search warrant was in the S.D. Tex., and the affiant found a mistake before it was finalized that he communicated to the AUSAs involved. The correction, however, wasn\u2019t made before he signed it, and he didn\u2019t notice it. When … Continue reading